 |
|
|
|
 "The idea of deep time ... explains so much of the world around us," Bill Nye said in the viral video.
August 31st, 2012
04:34 PM ET
Creationists hit back at Bill Nye with their own videoBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - Bill Nye's viral YouTube video pleading with parents not to teach their children to deny evolution has spawned an online life of its own, with prominent creationists hitting back against the popular TV host. "Time is Nye for a Rebuttal," Ken Ham the CEO of Answers in Genesis writes on his website. Answers in Genesis is the Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Nye's criticism of creationism went viral earlier this week, after being posted last Thursday. "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," Nye says in his Big Think video, which has been viewed nearly 3 million times.
Ham writes that Nye is joining in with other evolutionists who say teaching children to deny evolution is a form of "child abuse." That idea comes in part from the atheist scientist Richard Dawkins, who in his book "The God Delusion" argues against exposing children to religion before they are old enough to fully understand it. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories "At AiG and the Creation Museum, we teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes — and where they came from," Ham writes. "We tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life and that they were created for a purpose. "No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God." Ham is the public face of a group that academics call Young Earth Creationists, though they prefer to be called Biblical Creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis found in the Bible. The Creation Museum also produced its own rebuttal video on YouTube that features two of their staff scientists, both Ph.Ds, David Menton and Georgia Purdom. "[Nye] might be interested to know I also teach my young daughter about evolution and I know many Christian parents who do the same," Purdom says in the video. "Children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past." For the past 30 years, one popular method for Creationists to advance their cause has been to make an equal-time argument,with Creationism taught alongside evolution. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom. In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school class rooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state. A key point between most scientists and many creationists is the timing for the origin of the world. Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old and the universe as 14.5 billion years old. "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 says in his viral video. Young Earth Creationists say the weeklong account of God creating the earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years. "Yes we see fossils and distant stars, but the history on how they got there really depends on our worldview," Purdom says in the museum's rebuttal. "Do we start with man's ideas, who wasn't here during man's supposed billions of years of earth history or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all?" Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Polling from Gallup has shown for the past 30 years that between 40-46% of the survey respondents believe in Creationism, that God created humans and the world in the past 10,000 years. The most recent poll showed belief in atheistic evolution was on the rise at 16%, nearly double what it had been in previous years. The poll also found 32% of respondents believe in evolution guided by God. |
  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 find it interesting that the very foundation of the trolls and athiests are the theorys put forth by these scientists that "Believe in God or a higher power" kinda funny doncha think?
The scientists that I am arguing in favor of are Einstein, Hawking and Darwin. None of which believed.
The funniest thing ever is that of a religious tard coming up with this one liner: "prove that no god(s) exist".
What I think is really funny is that you write the word "athiests" and expect others not to laugh at you. Idiot.
Virtual no modern scientist believes in Creationism. There was a link earlier that showed 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution.
If I were writing a paper I would be concered with spelling...Idiot.
I was arguing for an Architect not that Evolution does not exist...merely that Evolution is part of Gods design.
Is this sarah palin? Doncha think.
@lamb of dog
Why do you result to childish insults when presented with an Argument? I presented data...maybe that data is flawed and I proposed a position. You respond with Insults...Troll Much? I think you are posting in the wrong forum probably should be posting on Yahoo.
At least Common Nonsense came up with an Argument and some data that I could look up.
"Result"?? I think you mean "resort", little one.
Stop posturing. You're looking ridiculous.
Actually Edo, you presented a logical fallacy pretending to be an argument. Common among creationists.
You haven't presented any argument (which is not capitalized unless it's at the beginning of a sentence, by the way).
Tom I am not posturing just stating my opinion on the matter and backing it up with what data I had. If I wanted a spell checker I would paste anything I wrote into word. Once again I know how to spell and have written papers where spelling and punctuation matter...I CoUlD WrItE LiKe this does that change the position of the posting?
Gladflie please explain...
You shouldn't need to use a spell-checker to write like someone who has a brain, Edo. You haven't presented any "data" at all. Your unsupported and poorly expressed opinions are all I see here.
If you don't want to be laughed at, don't be laughable.
Then you come back at lamb of dog and accuse him of "resulting" to insults and tell him HE'S the one who should be posting at Yahoo?
Are you kidding me? I wouldn't take you seriously now if you WERE Einstein, after that performance.
I presented data...you deny the information that I posted as data?
Data a known or assumed fact that is used as the basis for a theory, conclusion, or inference
Maybe it was a poor assumption but you sir are wrong that I havent presented any data.
Edo, look up "Appeal to Authority". Educate yourself. It might do you some good.
I'm not a "sir" and I'm not wrong. You haven't presented any "data".
Tom sorry In my effort to be polite if I called you Sir,
The information I posted was supporting data...whether that data was flawed or not remains is unimportant in this discussion. You cannot discount data simply because you dont think its relevant.
Gadflie I will check out the link thanks
Posting a list of scientists who you claim 'believe' is NOT DATA, you moron.
There is no need to deny evolution in my opinion...God Created everything, God is everwhere, at everytime and in everything.
God created the perfect machine...The complexity of which boggles the mind. Scientists just have recently come to understand how a bee flies and dont really have an in depth understanding on how a cut heals.
God made us in his image so we are able to think and come up with theories ourselves but scientists dont really understand anything yet.
According to this list,...94 believers to 8 non believers...I believe that percentage would be 92%.
Nobel Scientists (20-21 Century)
Albert Einstein Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant
Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic
Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran
Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist
Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)
Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican
Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian
Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim
Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker
Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)
Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Nobel Writers (20-21 Century)
T.S. Eliot Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglo-Catholic (Anglican)
Rudyard Kipling Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican
Alexander Solzhenitsyn Nobel Laureate in Literature Russian Orthodox
François Mauriac Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic
Hermann Hesse Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian; Buddhist?
Winston Churchill Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican
Jean-Paul Sartre Nobel Laureate in Literature Lutheran; Freudian; Marxist; atheist; Messianic Jew
Sigrid Undset Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic (previously Lutheran)
Rabindranath Tagore Nobel Laureate in Literature Hindu
Rudolf Eucken Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian (denomination?)
Isaac Singer Nobel Laureate in Literature Jewish
Nobel Peace Laureates (20-21 Century)
Albert Schweitzer Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Lutheran
Jimmy Carter Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Baptist (former Southern Baptist)
Theodore Roosevelt Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dutch Reformed; Episcopalian
Woodrow Wilson Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Presbyterian
Frederik de Klerk Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dutch Reformed
Nelson Mandela Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Christian (denomination?)
Kim Dae-Jung Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Catholic
Dag Hammarskjold Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Christian (denomination?)
Martin Luther King, Jr. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Baptist
Adolfo Perez Esquivel Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Catholic
Desmond Tutu Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Anglican
John R. Mott Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Methodist
Founders of Modern Science (16-21 Century)
Isaac Newton Founder of Classical Physics and Infinitesimal Calculus Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)
Galileo Galilei Founder of Experimental Physics Catholic
Nicolaus Copernicus Founder of Heliocentric Cosmology Catholic (priest)
Johannes Kepler Founder of Physical Astronomy and Modern Optics Lutheran
Francis Bacon Founder of the Scientific Inductive Method Anglican
René Descartes Founder of Analytical Geometry and Modern Philosophy Catholic
Blaise Pascal Founder of Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics,
and the Theory of Probabilities Jansenist
Michael Faraday Founder of Electronics and Electro-Magnetics Sandemanian
James Clerk Maxwell Founder of Statistical Thermodynamics Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
Lord Kelvin Founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics Anglican
Robert Boyle Founder of Modern Chemistry Anglican
William Harvey Founder of Modern Medicine Anglican (nominal)
John Ray Founder of Modern Biology and Natural History Calvinist (denomination?)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz German Mathematician and Philosopher,
Founder of Infinitesimal Calculus Lutheran
Charles Darwin Founder of the Theory of Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
Ernst Haeckel German Biologist,
the Most Influential Evolutionist in Continental Europe
Thomas H. Huxley English Biologist and Evolutionist,
Famous As "Darwin's Bulldog"
Joseph J. Thomson Nobel Laureate in Physics, Discoverer of the Electron,
Founder of Atomic Physics Anglican
Louis Pasteur Founder of Microbiology and Immunology Catholic
Great Philosophers (17-21 Century)
Immanuel Kant One of the Greatest Philosophers
in the History of Western Philosophy Lutheran
Jean-Jacques Rousseau Founder of Modern Deism born Protestant;
converted as a teen to Catholic
Voltaire French Philosopher and Historian,
One of the Most Influential Thinkers of the Enlightenment raised in Jansenism
David Hume Scottish Empiricist Philosopher, Historian, and Economist,
Founder of Modern Skepticism Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Spinoza Dutch-Jewish Philosopher,
the Chief Exponent of Modern Rationalism Judaism; later pantheism/deism
Giordano Bruno Italian Philosopher, Astronomer, and Mathematician,
Founder of the Theory of the Infinite Universe Catholic
George Berkeley Irish Philosopher and Mathematician, Founder of Modern Idealism,
Famous as "The Precursor of Mach and Einstein" Anglican
John Stuart Mill English Philosopher and Economist,
the Major Exponent of Utilitarianism agnostic; Utilitarian
Richard Swinburne Oxford Professor of Philosophy,
One of the Most Influential Theistic Philosophers
Nobelists, Philosophers, and Scientists that believe in Jesus
– Alexis Carrel
– Albert Einstein
– Arthur Compton
– Robert Millikan
– Francois Mauriac
– Sigrid Undset
– T.S. Eliot
– Mother Theresa
– Albert Schweitzer
– Theodore Roosevelt
– Frederik de Klerk
– John R. Mott
– Kim Dae-Jung
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
– Jimmy Carter
– Blaise Pascal
Source(s):
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobe…
We are fearfully and wonderfully made and just a study on the intricate designs and function of His creation is enough to humble me. Once you get to know Him, you will come to learn that He actually does rock!!!
When you have to misrepresent so much to make an argument, chances are you're arguing an untruth.
Kid, just because Einstein was born Jewish, doesn't mean he was a believer. He described himself as an agnostic. Other than that, the argument is just an appeal to authority. Laughable.
You definitely creep me out.
Here we are today of those men that have contributed to science and now all the religious freaks are running scared of the sciences today.. why is that?
Why is science making your religions now irrelevant that you now have to cling to their deaths like they are a token from your delusional god?
Agnostic is the belif in a higher power do you deny that? Why would it creep you out? Just stating facts or are you only interested in arguing non-facts? come up with some data or shut up maybe?
Edo, you really need to look up the definition of Agnostic. Your ignorance is showing.
Is that Edo or Ego?
Where you wrote "we don't understand" you should have wrote "I don't understand"
"He really does rock, once you get to know him." Straight off the Youth for Christ bandwagon.
Edo according to yourself you need to shut up. You don't even know what agnostic means.
Agnostic- somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
Looks like my understanding is correct...Basically that you cant prove he/it exists but you also cannot prove he/it does not exist. So the folks on the list either believed in God or were not sure He did or Did not exist
That sum it up?
Once again attempts are correcting grammar or spelling are just distracting wastes of time...I know how to spell and failing that I know how to use a spell checker. The issue here is I dont want to waste my time getting it all right for a bunch of folks on a forum...The arguments and positions are what Interest me.
It's only a retard that could think agnostics believe in a higher power.
Rational Ill dumb it down for you with a link....
http://www.ehow.com/how_2074813_become-agnostic.html
evolution...the greatest hoax of all time
Wow! Did you come up with that yourself?
Oh I see the confusion. Religions ask people for money, so you are assuming science does the same. Therefore science is a hoax.
No it turns out that science doesn't ask for money. That's entirely in the purvey of religions.
When all of you religious freaks are dead and your religions have fallen away – we'll finally be able to rejoice in freedom.
God...the greatest hoax of all time
Nye is an engineer, not scientist, who received the "Humanist of the Year" award in 2010. Hmmm.....
He is a scientist by any and every definition of the word.
Sorry you are not that good with the English language to understand.
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.
Typical weak arguments from retard creationists.."look one thing is wrong.. they must all be wrong."
Get a fvckin clue you moron creationists.
Only the mystical think they are infallible.
"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. - Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.
Sorry kid, not peer reviewed.
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm
Ooh, an argumentum ad populum. Here's a fun rebuke in the same spirit. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Common sense is that name a joke?
FYi that website says "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
Not exactly a majority...
If evolution is a fact, why do many scientists still advocate for intelligent design? The only FACT here is that evolutionists have succeeded in creating an illusion of fact and acceptance of their doctrine. If anyone dares contradict their beliefs, they resort to childish name calling and self righteous rants.
Which scientists?
No credible scientists advocate retarded design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uioxhkcnhc&feature=player_embedded#!
Rest In Peace William Sanford Nye. You will be missed.
He's more alive than ever.
Rest in peace, daniel, you guys are on the way out.
Daniel why don't you jump on your dinosaur and ride off into the sunset.
Once more for effect Gadflie: if evolution is true, we descended from whatever, then why, please tell me why there is STILL debate over evolution vs. debate. One would think since the question has been finally answered, mankind can put away all his beliefs, that the governments and nations of the world would have finally let the TRUTH out to all. And finally, once more for effect, we see Tremendous Design in the universe, down to the smallest particle of DNA. And you want me to believe it is all the result of blind chance........????? Sorry my man, but that takes more imagination- and more stretching of the bounds of credulity for even me. You go on and believe what you want.....Let the evidence take you where it may......Your theory remains so.............What bothers me is that supposedly intelligent people like yourself see the world as just coming into being without a Designer.....Honestly, all name-calling aside......that is really and truly idiotic, and displays an intentional lack of intellectual curiosity........"Darwins's Black Box, by Philip Johnson........Get it, and enrich yourself.......save the name calling for the gym........I wish you well.....
That's simple. Because people like you are willfully ignorant. It's really that simple. Now, it's your turn.
Just for amusement. Let's see exactly what evidence would you accept as sufficient to show that evolution is indeed a fact. How about the absolute gold standard? If I can show you sufficient evidence of every single evolutionary step between two different species (species defined by the strictest scientific standard, they do not interbreed), each step testable and verifiable by any test or standard that you like, would you then accept that as sufficient evidence that evolution is indeed a fact? If not, why not?
I've read Darwin's Black Box. I found it amusing. Not a single argument in it that wasn't either a logical fallacy or a misuse of math. Not one.
VinTroll
Who created god?
vincent, you have presented not even a glimmer of evidence for creationism.
Maybe that's because, other than the bible, there isn't any.
Really, it's deplorable that people are this ignorant about science.
So since your little brain can't fathom creation you just decide it must be some sky fairy.
"Tremendous Design" => What would I do if I were God and knew what I know. I don't think I would design the Universe and everything in it down to the last detail. I'd let my associate fire things off with the BigBang – repeat as necessary until things were right for the emergence of life with the features of evolutionary dynamics. Sit back and watch.
Programs I write in real life develop fantastic (apparent) complexity from only a few rules. That makes me feel good. I can reflect on my Tremendous Design.
There's a lot of people here who have not read the Bible and are just talking out of their rear end. They talk simpleton talk because they are too lazy and full of themselves to even try to learn any other side besides Maybe a friend of theirs told them there is no God. That is why they are just fools. A good debater on the side of evolution (although none found on this string) learns all the sides of a subject to present a good argument – unlike what I've seen here. Here, you just have a bunch of stupid people mouthing off as if they think they know something – and again, are too stupid to really research it out.
Ok, let's start the debate with some standards. Let's see exactly what evidence would you accept as sufficient to show that evolution is indeed a fact. How about the absolute gold standard? If I can show you sufficient evidence of every single evolutionary step between two different species (species defined by the strictest scientific standard, they do not interbreed), each step testable and verifiable by any test or standard that you like, would you then accept that as sufficient evidence that evolution is indeed a fact? If not, why not?
Have you read the texts of every other religion?
debating your fictional book would be as silly as debating the deep universal truths of a collection of Calvin & Hobbes cartoons.
Oh, look. It's science only? back again. Too embarrassed to appear under her original moniker, I guess. No wonder.
Hey stupid person. If all your "research" comes from a stupid book written hundreds of years ago you're pathetic.
Hey stupid person. If all your "research" comes from a stupid book written hundreds of years ago you're very pathetic.
Reading the Bible is not "research". It's just a bunch of words written around 300 AD by people, not one of who ever met Jesus.
religilous:
"It's just a bunch of words written around 300 AD by people..."
Not quite. I guess it's a smidge better that you believe that than believing the Bible's supernatural fantasies, but you do not have your facts straight.
Eric, so you admit that evolution from one species into another is indeed a fact?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVshkVF0SY
Agree with Nye, children need to be educated about evolution and that it is indeed a fantastic lie woven by the non-believer.
Which child does not like fairy tales? the greatest fairy tale of the 21st century- the evolution tail 😉
Are you retarded?
It might behove if u call urself a 'national retard' and a not 'rational ......'
I'm a creationist. I have faith that religions are created when a guy with no other skills starts telling stories about how everyone is going to Hell if they don't give him money.
Gadflie
Thats like me asking what proof do you have God does not exist. Which cant be answered, you cant prove a negitive.
I'm finding it amusing that Vincent's argument basically boils down to "I'm ignorant and that means that evolution is false".
and I find it equally interesting that you cant answer serious questions with facts, you only regurgitate information without proof of its' validity, and call it theory.. Then, without answering my questions, you condescendingly question my intellectual dishonesty.......So much for your intellectual honesty....I have not heard one word from you on the question of transitional species, or the existence of vestigial organs, only two, just two of the many problems with evolution. So,here is my suggestion to you my smug, ignorant friend......YOU do your research on those two topics, 'splain them to me so even an ignoramus such as I can impart your superiority in matters of the intellect. So, for all you readers out there, please help my friend Gadflie do something other than run from the questions put to him, and insult where reason should suffice......I may be ignorant in some matters, but I am certainly not a pmpous ass. u, unfortunately, cannot say the same. You insult rather than argue....Come to think of it,,, that sounds like a bit like the Democratic presidential playbook.......Could it be, could that be the reason for the lack of "put up, or shut up" comments from you, dear sir........methinks it to be true
Vincent, how many transitional species would I have to list to satisfy you? And, exactly how are vestigal organs a problem for evolution? If anything, they are an obvious problem for creationism.
And, why did you avoid answering my question to you. Here it is again for your convenience.
Just for amusement. Let's see exactly what evidence would you accept as sufficient to show that evolution is indeed a fact. How about the absolute gold standard? If I can show you sufficient evidence of every single evolutionary step between two different species (species defined by the strictest scientific standard, they do not interbreed), each step testable and verifiable by any test or standard that you like, would you then accept that as sufficient evidence that evolution is indeed a fact? If not, why not?
I've got a question Vinny which you don't seem to want to answer. Who designed the designer? Who created god?
Poor Vincent is following the dishonest creationist playbook. Never answer questions. Especially about what kind of evidence you would consider valid. If you do, they just might be able to produce it and then you would have to admit that you're wrong. Instead, either give implausable requirements (an ant giving birth to a grasshopper), keep changing the evidence requirements, or come to a forum such as this and require explanations that take textbooks of data. But, he doesn't realize that his dishonesty is clear to everyone. If not, he would answer my query.
If I can show you sufficient evidence of every single evolutionary step between two different species (species defined by the strictest scientific standard, they do not interbreed), each step testable and verifiable by any test or standard that you like, would you then accept that as sufficient evidence that evolution is indeed a fact? If not, why not?
RL
God has always existed....he is without time he was, is and is yet to come. The fault in your line of thinking is God is bound by time. Time was created by him inside the universe he created. We are constrained by it not God.
an easy way to think about it is if time doesnt exist you always are, will be and are yet to come... Pretty impressive concept for man to understand thousands of years ago.
Eric, where's your evidence? Got any? No, you don't. Neither does vince. All he has is a bunch of ellipses.
So where is the evidence for Macro evolution? you believe it but there is no evidence. How did the cell form? Where is the proof? But once again you believe time and random chance...
So you believe without evidence... sounds like we are not that much different.
Even the bigbang has never be observed only infered.
So I ask where is your proof.
How do you know god has always existed? Maybe he was created by a lesbian fruit fly? Or maybe the universe has always existed and keeps reoccuring cyclically?
Eric, let's start with macro evolution. Another word for this is speciation. So, let's see what you would accept as evidence. How about the absolute gold standard? If I can show you evidence of every single evolutionary step between two different species (species defined by the strictest scientific standard, they do not interbreed), each step testable and verifiable by any test or standard that you like, would you then accept that as sufficient evidence that evolution is indeed a fact? If not, why not?
Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a billion years.
Macro and micro are terms you creationists made up to attempt to defend your pathetic inability to deny that evolution has occurred and continues to occur, Eric.
Do all you read the same stupid propaganda? You all post the same nonsensical crap over and over.
Why don't you take a science class, Eric, instead of just refusing to learn?
Eric is hilarious. He demands proof yet offers none.
I would accept it if for any Modern mammal you go back 3 nodes on the "tree of life" and show me hafl the 150K or so transitional forms that would be required to have existed to change slowly over time.
Yeah. He's a lot like Chard that way. Only a bit less intelligent, if that's even possible.
A variation can take place over one generation. 150k wouldn't even be that far back.
lamb of dog
why is it funny I am telling you what I believe, I am not the one claiming I know because I have evidence.
...we have emperical evidence...
I have faith.
Eric, I asked presented you a query. You avoided it. Why? Here it is again, just to see if you are intellectually honest. If I can show you sufficient evidence of every single evolutionary step between two different species (species defined by the strictest scientific standard, they do not interbreed), each step testable and verifiable by any test or standard that you like, would you then accept that as sufficient evidence that evolution is indeed a fact? If not, why not?
I dont think you get where I am comming from yet... I do believe in natural selection.. to what extent we do not have proof.
Now lets assume Darwin was completly correct it still does not take anything away from God for all we know thats how he did it.
But at this point there is not enough evidence that one can reasonably conclude that.
Yet you state that you understand god and time. And that your god exist and is in control of these things. And you have 0 proof. Its hilarious.
Gadflie
I did answer it 4 posts above yours
I'm we, and I don't know. Neither do you.
Yes I believe. That is the point.
It is faith.
Just like we believe the bigbang happened... it has never been observed.
Eric, no you did not. You answered a strawman that you came up with. My query was very specific. Read it carefully.
If I can show you sufficient evidence of every single evolutionary step between two different species (species defined by the strictest scientific standard, they do not interbreed), each step testable and verifiable by any test or standard that you like, would you then accept that as sufficient evidence that evolution is indeed a fact? If not, why not?
Evidence that the Big Bang occurred has been shown. Evidence of god has not. The fact that you don't understand the meaning of evidence is not relevant, Eric.
No but if you yac show me even 10% of the transitional forms that connect me to a pigon since we share a common ancestor 10% shouldnt be that hard.
You failed to answer the second part of the question, Eric. Why not?
Tom I said observed the oldest or youngest picture of the universe we have is we believe about 400,000 years after we believe the bigbang happened. the cosmic background radation image.
Eric, again, you avoid the entire query. Read it again. If I can show you sufficient evidence of every single evolutionary step between two different species (species defined by the strictest scientific standard, they do not interbreed), each step testable and verifiable by any test or standard that you like, would you then accept that as sufficient evidence that evolution is indeed a fact? If not, why not?
Meanwhile Eric has no evidence that he can present for his god, and it has charateristics that are incompatible with each other.
"the cosmic background radation image."
Which is more evidence by a long shot than you've presented for your god or your statement that he did it.
Tom once again I am not trying to disprove scientific discovery. I personally believe the bigbang happened. still doesnt mean God didnt do it. I just stated by your standards we have never observed it. But yet we believe it.
Gadflie
I know where you are trying to go.. I believe evolution is a fact I never said I didnt. I said there is no evidence between forms. where is the proof I and a guppy have a common ancestor. There should be evedience in the fossil record. We have not found it.
We accept that it occurred because there's evidence to support it. There is no evidence that you've presented anywhere that supports the existence of god. None. You have faith, not facts. I have facts. I don't need to suspend disbelief and pretend that some being must have "done it." I am able to accept that we might not know all, but that doesn't mean there's a god. If you can present any evidence to convince me otherwise, go right ahead. You have consistently failed to do so every single time you have posted.
What I don't understand is why people like you cannot simply say that you don't have any evidence but you believe anyway. That would at least be honest. But instead, you continue to pretend that science is wrong and that there is a god controlling all things.
@Eric –
In science, theories are not "believed", they are accepted as useful models for describing the preponderance of empirical evidence. The two are profoundly different.
Tom I did say that....
I never said science was wrong. I said I believe it to be correct, however there is not enough evedience to conclude I have a common ancestor with a bat. I said a coupe times it is faith, that I believe.
I never said wrong, only the current evidence is lacking on a couple points. One day we may have that evidence, or maybe it doesnt exist, we do not know.
Eric, so you admit that macro evolution (evolution from one species to another) is actually a fact?
And you are wrong, Eric. There IS sufficient evidence and it doesn't require faith to see that. Just an understanding of basic science and a rational mind. You are missing one or both.
Where is the evidence of life coming from non-life or abiogenesis?
Or do you have faith that someday it will be revealed?
Is it possibe suer i think so between species I can think of a few the what ever moth been awhile.
Species is the lowest division. Which were divided and defined by man. But lets move up the ladder 1 rung to family. can you show me that.
@Eric –
I'm not aware of research pertaining to your relation to your "guppy" ancestors, but I think you'll find the following edifying:
-The protein coding genome for humans and mice is, on average, 85% identical (~50% of the total genome is identical)
-The human and gorilla genome is 98% identical.
-The human and chimpanzee genome is 98 – 99% identical.
Can't you see a pattern here?
Tom I would put my mind against yours any day. Lets see I would be willing to take a random IQ test I would bet I would out score you by close to 30 points.
Eric, so when you asked "where is the evidence for macro evolution?" you already believed that enough existed to show that macro evolution was true? Then why did you ask?
And, family is two rungs up from species. Genus is next. But, it is your turn. Since you admit that speciation is a fact, and changing to a different genus would only require more of the same mechanism, what evidence do you have that there is something preventing that from happening?
You'd lose, Eric. Bet on it.
@Eric –
Seriously, using terms like "transitional forms" outs you as a creationist/IDer/theistic-evolutionist; if none of those describe you, why do you seem to be unaware of any of the "transitional" fossil evidence?
e.g.
Ardipithecus -> Australopithecus ( a new genus)
Australopithecus -> Ho'mo habilis (a new species)
The evidence is out there.
@Eric –
...sorry...error...Ho'mo habilis is also a new genus.
Remember when that scientist stirred the waters and created a universe? Yeah me either!
That's for you Tom Tom 🙂
What's your point?
Actually particle physicists see spontaneous particle creation during high energy collisions all the time. They've done it millions of times.
Point being man and science has not created it... We only observe Gods work.
Alright great scientist... Spontaneously create a fly... It is small enough, shouldn't be too hard.
I get your point. You're mental.
Darwin, I'm sorry, but your argument is laughable. God, per Occam's razor, is the least likely correct answer to any question.
Only someone that believes this is all random is mental. Study the spiritual realm a fraction of the amount you study the physical and you too will believe.
I'm too busy studying Middle Earth. Also, who created god?
So create a fly... I'll even be satisfied with a ant... They are pretty basic.
Darwin, since only Creationists claim that anyone thinks it's totally random, I have to agree. But, scientists know that gravity itself is a wonderful organizing force.
Biologists indeed have been able to spontaneously create organic molecules simply by combining ammonia and some other chemicals, then stirring them up in the presence of an electrical charge. We haven't created a fly yet, that may take another 50 years or so, but we have been able to reproduce the primordial soup from which we all evolved.
You see, science is self-consistent. If it wasn't, we'd try to find better explanations.
Unlike religion, which is just some guy who came up with a story so that you would give him money.
Science is cool. I was fascinated with it most of my life... But the spiritual is just as exciting and rewarding. Darwin started out in school studying God and he was shown the mysteries of life.
@Religilous well your about 14 billion years behind God
Darwin, imagination and fiction are always fun. But, "God did it", in spite of being applied to so many questions as a place-holder answer over the years, has NEVER been shown to be the correct answer.
Oh, and Darwin realized that the whole God thing was bogus later in his life.
Darwin, apparently fictional characters, like your god, require a head start.
@gadfile so it's all random? If not, where's the start? There is another realm that is not so easily observed but God will show us if we ask.
The point of Darwin is that he believed when he asked God... I understand he got entangled with the religious folks and it shook his faith... But doesn't discount his beginning.
Even Rekigilous makes the point that biologists are mixing the right chemicals for something to happen.... Wow sounds like the second verse of Genesis.
Sorry Darwin, no physicist or biologist says it's random. That's something your creationists made up. And, Darwin, like most humans, was indoctrinated into a religious belief system. But, he educated himself out of it.
So, here's a query for you. Just for amusement. Let's see exactly what evidence would you accept as sufficient to show that evolution is indeed a fact. How about the absolute gold standard? If I can show you sufficient evidence of every single evolutionary step between two different species (species defined by the strictest scientific standard, they do not interbreed), each step testable and verifiable by any test or standard that you like, would you then accept that as sufficient evidence that evolution is indeed a fact? If not, why not?
Darwin, you write quite a bit like this idiot who called himself Brophy. He was a moron, almost as ignorant as you are.
Don't quit your job at MickeyD's, sweetie.
I don't doubt evolution... It is God's method. I take issue with man removing the power and glory of God out of it.
Oh there you are Tom Tom... What have you created today? A man... A universe? Yeah I didn't think so.
Like someone else here, muttonhead, I'll ask you if I have a million or so years to do it.
You really are unbelievable stupid. You must be a Poe. No one could be that ignorant in this day and age.
Darwin. Obviously sky fairy isnt helping you find peace. Your brain is all over the place.
Darwin, then please present your evidence for the existence of god. Something that is more convincing than the evidence for Leprechauns please.
Oh the name calling... Wow you must be a brilliant scientist. Oh wait... That is the characteristic of the uneducated.
If you're an example of god's handiwork, Darwin, he's a lame-azz god, or he likes making jokes.
Sure, Brophy, everyone here is uneducated except for you-the guy who thinks "your" and "you're" are interchangeable.
If I told you my conversion... You wouldn't believe anyway... I already tried that. Now I just try to get people to think a little... Planting seeds so to speak.
Lol Tom Tom.... I misspelled a word then you comeback with your ghetto slang? Striking!
You stupid git. If you want people to 'think a little', why don't YOU start first? You haven't made a cogent statement once on here. You're a moron if you imagine anyone thinks you're a worthy opponent.
It's Brophy all right. Total pea-brain.
Oh please no more names. Tell me something scientific that disproves god.... Let's see what you got.
Where did you find stupid tree seeds?
Tell me something scientific that disproves the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Oh the intelligence being displayed.
There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of your sky fairy. Your statement is ridiculous. So you deserve to be called stupid for even making it.
Yup, same dumb-azz tactics he used day after day as Clown Question Bro.
"You can't prove there isn't a god." Lather, rinse, repeat.
Sky fairy... Spaghetti monster.... Stupid?.... Are you guys in third grade
Most third graders are infinitely more rational than you. Answer the question.
What question? All i'm getting is name calling and childish statements.
Remember when Brophy answered the question "who created god?" Yeah, neither do I. Neither does anyone else.
The question is could you please disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
Not sure who Brophy is.... But the answer is unknown as it is not stated. He most likely has a father as we do. This I do know... God is real. There is a story in the bible that will open eternity for you. Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find.
Or keep thinking you are soo smart... And call everybody names.
OK, you're retarded.
Ok rational... If there was a book about this spaghetti monster you are so fond of, and this book had certain promises in it, and I was experiencing these promises, I would not disprove it but would believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
There you go. By tour logic, you now must believe in the FSM.
"Don't know who Brophy is."
And you wonder why you have zero credibility.
Your.
Ok so you give me satire. Note my qualifications for belief above.
You have zero credibility Tom Tom ... All I get from you is childish antics. I have been led and taught through the spirit... If it sounds like another person that speaks of the spirit then I praise God. Maybe you should pay attention.
You keep on dodging questions and changing your own rules. You're a cretin. Grow up and grow out of your fairytales.
Brophy, save your pathetic outraged dignity act for someone as stupid as you are.
And the names again... Shows weakness my friends!
Gonna call it a night. I do believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. God bless us all!
The only names you've been called are the ones you earned by your performance here, you lying sack.
Bill Nye could do a better job than Romney and Obama together.
And Frank Zappa would be better than all three. If only we could bring him back to life.
Damn – huge thunderstorm rolling thru – hopin that Joe Pesci doesn't strike me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZIHsqpRXvA&feature=player_detailpage