-41 votes

Are You Anti-Science?

Are you a Creationist? Do you want your kids to grow up with Creationist beliefs?

Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" lays it on the line for parents.

http://youtu.be/gHbYJfwFgOU

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

WOAH man!

thats a pretty amazing statement. you wanna prove that with some evidence next time?

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

What Statement?

Police routinely use the word bald in the hair color field? Look at any sex offender registry for bald men.

That Bill Nye is a tool of the Power Elite? Just check his wiki page where he pushes the psuedo-science of climate change and urges everyone to have a lower carbon footprint. He has an Elite background of expensive schools and a Beltway family.

That macro-evolution (all the Christian science textbooks I've read don't dispute micro-evolution and do teach natural selection) is a tool for the eugenicists to promote genocide?

Gee, where do you begin?

The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. . . .
To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. . . . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood. . . . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.
--Sir Arthur Keith

Margaret Sanger, and all your population control freaks are all big time evolution believers. The Scopes Monkey trial was a big put-on to get the Overton Window moved. Evidence? It abounds.

Actually you are right

I used to be a devout believer in evolution. Now, I'm not so sure. Anyway, the more I read about eugenics the more I realize why the theory of evolution was used to further the eugenics agenda.

Kind of reminds me of global warming science now

lots of dusty tomes

of obsolete "science" laying around. There is no fossil record of the intermediate creatures that Darwin said would have to be found to prove his theory. The original title for Origin of the Species included "Or the Struggle for Life of the Favored Races". You can't say he was just about applying that to animals for he and his cohorts deliberately inbred themselves to bring out their superiority. Epic Fail. Anyway, the evidence is not a done deal like they'd have you believe.

Good job

republicanmom. There is indeed thousands of years worth of obsolete science laying around, stuff that used to be believed with as fervent a faith as folks have in macroevolution, now. There is more obsolete science added to the trash pile with every passing day!

5 of Darwin's children were raving eugenicists

and joined a society at Havard with that title. Darwin was pretty much the father of the eugenics movement.

If

Are you an Atheist? If so you can explain a couple things to me. You could explain how in a naturalistic society anyone could damn anyone else for doing ANYTHING. Ethics are a concept, you can't touch them, can't feel them can't sit down and have lunch with them. How dare this man, Bill whoever tell us what we should do. When he tells us what to do, he tells something ethical. But he lives in a paradigm where ethics don't exist. Sure, he can pretend he's right, but "right" even as a category ceases to exist without an over arching moral law given by a moral law giver. Who IS God. Call him what you like, we're not debating his name, he is there, or else Atheists should just be quiet. Or not, ha, since all things are amoral. Neither right or wrong, Bill Nye is just an animal making sounds. And who cares what a wolf howls?

The theory of evolution is

The theory of evolution is not tested by science until it is reproduced by simulation or experiment in a lab.

No one has made a human out of a monkey, or even simulated it, that I am aware of.

You cannot be scientific until you test the theory.

Simulation

No one has made a human out of a monkey,

Of course not, it takes too many generations. Even with bacteria it takes very long to come to the point where you can say you arrived at another species.

or even simulated it

Yes it has been simulated many times already.

UFOs are real
4 Hour Witness DVD (radar operators, pilots, scientists, military)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud49Gh9yYLs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpHAxxRKksQ

Show me the peer reviewed

Show me the peer reviewed paper with a computational simulation at the gene level that made a functioning human from a common ancestor.

Notice I gave you the simple problem. You don't even have to start with microbes, I give you a common ancestor much closer. I still don't think you have any evidence, which means that your theory is baseless.

Enjoy science!

Signed,
A scientist.

Here you are

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=simulation+dna+human+evo...

This is not my area of expertise so I cannot judge about those simulations.

A true scientist should always try to disprove his own theory to find "holes" and improve the theory. That is how it should be but you and I know that dogmatism unfortunately is widespread in science circles.

UFOs are real
4 Hour Witness DVD (radar operators, pilots, scientists, military)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud49Gh9yYLs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpHAxxRKksQ

I asked for you to show me a

I asked for you to show me a simulation that takes a common ancestor, and mutates it into a monkey and a human through different lines. I also require "junk DNA" to be involved in the simulation. Just generate the entire set of genes, including all the junk, from realistic mutation and breeding parameters from the genes of a common ancestor.

My bet is that this will take trillions of years longer on average to achieve than the current estimate of the age of our sun.

The Junk DNA is required because it isn't "junk." (see research over the past 5+ years on that).

Have fun looking! I'll be impressed if you find something! :)

Excellent point

Excellent point. I don't know if someone ever did this.

Now, if some creationists would make such a simulation they could effectively disprove (or at least cast very serious doubt on) the current theory of evolution. Those scientists who stick to the theory of evolution will probably not do a full simulation because there is no need (in their point of view there is already enough proof for evolution).

Creationists/intelligent design scientists should try this simulation to show that it takes longer (as you expect, I don't expect it).

UFOs are real
4 Hour Witness DVD (radar operators, pilots, scientists, military)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud49Gh9yYLs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpHAxxRKksQ

I have run the numbers before

I have run the numbers before on this and it didn't look good at all for evolution from a single cell. Namely, I arrived at a number that would be many times longer than the age of the universe. Now, I am a mathematician and scientist, but I didn't go too deep beyond a few cursory parameters; so I must qualify that this was just a preliminary approximation.

However, I think we could state this as a math problem pretty easily if we could establish a starting point and an ending point. I could easily calculate the probability of any path starting at the start point (common ancestor genes) and ending at the end point (human genes). We could then find the expected length of the average random walk from start to end. Then, we just need to calculate the length of time it takes to take any step and we'd have our approximation on how long it would take, on average, randomly, to go from common ancestor to human.

Now, usually at this point I imagine the evolutionist stands up and says that environmental pressure magically shaves off the time we needed if things were random. It's like they think there is some intelligence to evolution (and I agree in a sense), which is a bit ironic, considering many of them are against "intelligent design." :)

My hunch is that this will be a very very large graph of nodes and edges, and that the random walk will, on average, be much longer than the current estimates for the age of the earth.

Just my creationist hunch as a scientist.

I've enjoyed the conversation!

Scientific theories make predictions

Scientific theories make predictions. Hence it is in principle possible to falsify a theory if evidence were found contradicting it.

The theory of evolution makes predictions, see e.g. here for predictions that theory makes: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/evo_science.html

The theory of creation also makes predictions, see e.g. here:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/predictions.html

As I've stated before I find that the evidence rather supports the theory of evolution and disproves the theory of (instant and recent) creation, but this is just my interpretation of the evidence.

UFOs are real
4 Hour Witness DVD (radar operators, pilots, scientists, military)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud49Gh9yYLs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpHAxxRKksQ

there has been countless expirements

to support Evolution both Artificial and Natural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_exp...

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

The scientific process

is based on observation and replication to establish some semblance of truth. No scientist has ever performed macroevolution even once, much less shown it to be true by replicating it over and over.

when the e coli bacteria

evolves into something that is not bacteria then tell me about evolution but until then you aint got nothing

LOL

are you kidding me?! you wanted evidence and you got it, but then it didn't satisfy your opinion of Evolution so you reject it. Now i see where the Conspiracy Theorist come from.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

I think its sad

that because something can develop a tolerance that you think that evolution is completely proven. Creationist for years have said that they accept micro evolution and understand that it used to be called adaptation since most of that can happen during the lifetime of the creature we are talking about, but all creationist want to see evidence of macro evolution. Please show me where bacteria becomes something else, or viruses become something else, or any creature that had a baby that was a different kind than it. I understand that inbreeding enough generations of a creature can cause some pretty distinct features but outside of inbreeding I know of no other example where changes happen (mostly due to having extra toes or larger or smaller bodies or body parts, not making them a new creature). And then the change only happens due to loss of data.

Rathionalists simply replace one dogma for another.

There are no "exceptions to the rule". The exception MAKES the rule. Until you have ALL the answers you should humble yourself and keep an open mind.

science is not a "dogma"

but rather the Lack of. No reliable conclusion aside from a hypotheses is derived without Data. That is why Science is so important as a view of the world. In such way of thinking the possibilities are endless in a sea of mystery.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

Science is a process and a method, not a result

Science is a process and a method, not a result. In order to be scientific one has to follow the scientific method. It is possible for different scientists to arrive at different theories while following the scientific method. Over time - with more evidence and research - those different theories tend to converge to a unified theory.

Believing or non-believing does not make someone scientific/skeptic or the opposite. A true skeptic is someone who is open-minded to ALL evidence. CSICOP, Bill Nye and Randi are dogmatic closed-minded fake skeptics because they are not open to all evidence, hence do not follow the scientific method.

Saying the above I nonetheless believe that both micro and macro evolution took/takes place because I find the evidence compelling. Darwin was a good guy and followed the scientific method.

UFOs are real
4 Hour Witness DVD (radar operators, pilots, scientists, military)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud49Gh9yYLs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpHAxxRKksQ

I had no idea...

Wow, I had no idea there were so many creationists amongst us.

i know right

and these are the people who tell us we should drink raw milk, build "free energy" generators.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

Ron Paul is a creationist! :)

Ron Paul is a creationist! :)

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

But I respect him anyway.

I understand the Trinity of mass mind control - Schools, churches and "entertainment." It is really hard to not get brainwashed by these entities, especially since they begin their indoctrination before we are able to cognate, and employ reason.
Here's the thing - why is it so hard for people to say "I don't know, I was not there." Truth, it is just that easy... From that point, we could talk about what we BELIEVE and have the mutual understanding that we both are operating on BELIEFS not FACTS - it keeps differences of opinion in the realm of "friendly conversation" rather than a passionate discussion upon which ones eternal salvation rests.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Right? Wow.

How about flat-Earthers? Any of you still out there?

(don't be mad)

Don't be mad

As I insult you and call you stupid. Nice. Many people believe in theistic evolution (intelligent design) evolution directed by God, many believe in straight 6 day creationism. But unless you're the end all be all God of the universe yourself, you probably shouldn't call people stupid. Come down off that high horse and walk a while with the rest of us who don't know everything.

I didn't call anybody

stupid and don't claim to know anything 100%. We are equally free to believe as we choose. If you think I was being insulting then let me refer you to the Flat Earth Society:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Yes, they claim massive scientific evidence to support this belief. It seems that it is actually coming from you, the condescension and name calling towards these particular individuals. Who's on the high horse now?