-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



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You want more documentation about the life of Jesus?

Go look in the Talmud. Many of the traditional elements are there, but it's all twisted around : "Jesus was a soreceror", "Jesus is boiling in excrement in Hell", "Mary was a whore", etc.

The Talmud? A book written

The Talmud? A book written 220 years after the supposed death of your god that up to that point has only been passed on by oral tradition?

Thanks for backing your fiction with another book of fiction, I appreciate the laugh!

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

Why bother?

Why not just point it was fiction? Why bother writing another book of fiction that says the exact opposite? Why write a book that tells a different version of basically the same story/events?

That would be like reading a book that said 9/11 was pulled off by 19 arabs with boxcutters, then reading another book that says our gov't did it with the help of Mossad, then after reading both books coming to the conclusion that 9/11 never happened.

Wasn't the oldest

of the books of the bible passed down for 140-170 ?? years by word of mouth too? Has no one played that game where you tell one person a story and they secretly pass it around the room? My drama class in HS went from dating gossip to rival basketball strengths in 20+ people!

Praise Voldemort!

.

What proof would you require?

Because your argument is BS .. where does logic come from?, where does morality come from? Where did the universe come from? was it always here? ... you can't explain any of this, so it is the same thing as believing in the Bible so explain to me what the difference is? It is Faith

Logic comes from our basic

Logic comes from our basic survival needs, all animals have a basic capacity for reason, our capacity for logic is simply on a far more complex level due to our much larger brain size.

Morality comes from society, from us, some of it is innate, like protecting your newborns, some of it is adaptive, like forming large groups and dividing up tasks to better our society.

The universe? Well we're not sure yet, BUT we are not afraid of not being sure, it is simply just another mystery for us to explore and figure out.

It is not faith, I do not claim "I KNOW" where the universe comes from, but you claim the you know 100% for sure that god created it.

That is the difference between religion and science, religion is afraid of lack of knowledge and denies anything that might contradict it, on the other hand science LOVES what we don't know because it guides it into the direction of more knowledge and more progress and then tries to disprove itself at every step.

No science is science unless it provides a circumstance under which it is disprovable.

No religion is religion unless it demands complete and utter faith while discarding any facts that contradict it.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

Because this is the Daily

Because this is the Daily Paul, I am sort of surprised that nobody has posted this yet in this thread.

Every person here who thinks those of us who DO NOT ACCEPT the theory of evolution are somehow less intelligent or anti-science should listen to what Dr. Ron Paul says about his own beliefs about evolution. You just might be surprised. Is Ron anti-science?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

You may be surprised but just

You may be surprised but just because we respect and listen to what Ron Paul says does not mean many of us agree 100% with him.

I respect Ron Paul on his stands against SOPA, on his stands for personal liberty, less spying, less war and more diplomatic relations, these are issues that are extremely important to me.

Science is also important to me, but unlike religious nutcases like Congressman Paul Broun, Ron Paul does not go around waving a cross in everybodys face and yelling that science is "lies straight from the pit of Hell." I might disagree with Ron Pauls religiosity but I respect his restraint of it.

I wish many people here would follow his example of rational and factual discussion instead of the blatant name calling and hearsay that often gets thrown around here.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

I for one

am definitely not anti-science seeing how I am studying to be and Engineer and Astrophysicist. The problem I have is with science illiterate people that think they can bash science without even studying what it is. If we stop doing science (only good science that helps people) we might as well smash all the technology we have and craw back into the caves from which we came.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

I honestly just don't get it

How can people who have math skills reject physics or chemistry? How can people with either/both of those reject nuclear decay. How can otherwise intelligent people reject micro-evolution? How can they then not comprehend the power of trillions of trillions of attempts leading to something that sticks.

And honestly, how can people discount so much of the world around them that's proven and tested and even predicted based on a single story that simply doesn't make any real-world sense, was passed down over thousands of years, is documented as being human written after generations of word of mouth, by a group of people that didn't know squat scientifically, is documented as being collected, selected and edited by a group of oligarchs who clearly had motive for mass population control (this one blows me away in regard to the people on this site), directly conflicts with itself many times and has been found to be a near duplicate of numerous previous stories before it was written?

Every creationist comment on here has discounted logic or reason at one point or another in either their question or the premise they base it on. They push for facts that prove one thing or another and then instantly jump on given proof as being a religion in and of itself when it is actually the polar opposite of a religion.

Where has peoples' ability to reason things out gone?

Who rejects micro-evolution?

Even most strict young-earth creationists think Darwin was correct about natural selection and survival of the fittest. The debate is over whether micro-changes within a basic kind of organism can add up to macro changes into a majorly different kind of organism. Observing variations in finch species is one thing. Trying to explain in detail how micro changes lead from a whale to a cow is another matter. You accept that this kind of thing happened based on your particular faith that there is no God, and therefore that purely natural causes must explain everything.

Naturalism also runs into issues when it comes to accounting for human reason as just a series of cause and effect events in the natural world. I'd recommend you check out the discussion of this in 'Miracles' by C.S. Lewis, if you're open-minded enough to consider a challenge to your faith. ;)

Darwin was a Geologist

That was his schooling he is NOT a Biologist

This would have been a valid

This would have been a valid point if biologists had rejected his findings. Instead further research by biologists for 200 years only reinforced his discovery.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

I find it convenient

that the only thing you argued in that whole comment was the subjective disagreement on where the line is drawn between micro and macro. I may have been a little over-reaching in my categorization of micro but you are definitely incorrect about there not being any creationists denying micro. I have found many that claim dog breeding is not any level of evolution and that god did that for us.

Where is your retort on the other questions? e.g. do you believe in nuclear decay being a testable, repeatable and time-able process?

No Kidding

Nuclear decay is testable .. What are all the assumptions that are used when dating "anything" how many daughter elements are present to begin with? rate of decay constant?

So now Mr. Antiscience they have found C14 in diamonds and in all fossils .. how does the "scientist" explain these?

They have found soft tissue in t rex bone they needed to cut in half to extract out of dig site .. so you beleive this soft tissue is 60 billion years old

There are approximate 100 different ways to date the earth and most prove a young earth, but of course the "scientists" never mention these or come up with more unproven BS to explain like th Ort cloud

Of course...

Physics is physics, although it's always subject to new refinements of course: Newton --> Einstein/Planck --> string theory?, etc.

That one just stood out to me, since all the creationist lectures and debates I've ever been to had both sides agreeing on microevolution.

It is very tacky to

It is very tacky to misrepresent someones idea, and then explain why that idea is wrong... At best, it's the other way around... Cow's and then whales (you got it backwards). Whale's are mammals that went from land to sea. The biggest fallacy is that you claim that one is a direct descended of the other. This is not true, although cows and whales share a common ancestor, I don't think any biologist would make the claim that the whale descended from the cow (or as you say, the cow descended from the whale).

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

yeah Darwin

claimed Bears evolved into whales .. Hahahahaha

If I misrepresented...

...it was unintentional. The post I was replying to was misrepresenting the view of many by assuming they reject microevolution along with macroevolution. My main point was to say that even most staunch creationists agree with Darwin on natural selection in the realm of small changes within one basic kind of organism. It is good for me to hone my knowledge of evolutionary theory and get the order of things correct, but going from the common ancestor to the cow or the whale is still macroevolution, and that is where the debate is -- its not a debate about microevolution among finches, for example.

It was a minor detail... Just

It was a minor detail... Just couldn't resist pointing it out. At least you understand the difference between macro and micro evolution. Many people on the thread just lump the two into one broad category and kick it to the curb. You have to wonder how someone can dismiss a theory that they don't even understand... You know? I myself don't know all the fine details, but you can't write it off until you at least understand the basic principles.

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

When has anyone sensibly

When has anyone sensibly argued that cows evolve into whales, or some such nonsense trotted out as sure proof of creationism?

I'd be interested...

...in hearing a detailed, sensible account of how exactly sea life became land animals. And yes, google cows and whales, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

That's a softball!

I would love to inform you on this one... Most decent comparative anatomy courses spend a few weeks on this very topic, as it is one of the most complete transitions present in the fossil record.

There are two very good examples of extremely "tetrapod-like" fish:
- panderichthys (located in 380 million year old strata)
- eusthenopteron (located in 385 million year old strata)

And there are two very good examples of extremely "fish-like" tetrapods:
- ichthyostega (located in 365 million year old strata)
- acanthostega (located in 360 million year old strata)

There's only one problem... We have salamanders that look like fish... and we have fish that look like salamanders... But where's the half salamander half fish creature?

If such a creature were to have existed, it would have to be located in ~370 million year old strata... in between the above species...

So that's were we looked... and... viola!! Tiktaalik is a half fish half tetrapod that was discovered in 2006.

Tiktaalik is a beautiful transitional fossil. It's a fish with functional wrist joints and non-rigid articulation between the bones of the pectoral girdle and the skull.

In fact... evidence for the transition between fish and land animals is present in none other than... HUMANS! Next time you have an anatomy textbook handy, take a look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Most creationists quiver when you mention this structure.

In short, the recurrent laryngeal nerve exits the brain stem, travels all the way down the neck into the thoracic cavity, loops around the aortic arch (main vessel exiting the heart), travels back up the neck (almost to where it started from), and innervates the larynx (voice box). At best, a creationist could refer to this as an "unintelligent design." The extreme example is the giraffe neck, where there is 17 feet of wasted nerve.

The only way to explain this is by taking a look at the anatomy of our fish ancestors. The recurrent laryngeal nerve in fact does take direct root in fish... But in fish, the laryngeal pouch is located in the thoracic cavity, and it is intersected by systemic gill arch (aortic arch in mammals). This format makes complete sense and has been conserved in the genome ever since.

As far as why this evolutionary process would occur... Well, with a basic understanding of the principles of natural selection, drift, mutation, and migration, and the impact of environmental pressures, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out why some individuals having a slight edge over others would have driven such a change.

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

GoodSamaritan's picture

Same Old Story - Different Fossil

That "beautiful transitional fossil" is nothing of the sort. What you've presented is an imaginative story about a severely incomplete fossil.

Tiktaalik has now taken the place of Coelacanth in the evolution genre of fairy tales about walking fish. Evolutionists were absolutely convinced that Coelacanth walked on its fins until it went extinct about 66 million years ago. That is, until a live one was discovered in 1938 and they could then see with their own eyes that its fins were used solely for maneuvering in water.

Same junk science wrapped in different paper.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

This could very well be

This could very well be true... Maybe one day a more complete fossil, or even a living specimen will be discovered that will falsify the evidence. Although if you view the evidence for tiktaalik being a transitional fossil, it is quite compelling. The important lesson here is that nothing in science is absolute. We will admit when we are wrong and go back to the drawing board. It can therefore be said that anything that still stands in science, does so because it has withstood scrutiny, and has never been disproven. I could point out a dozen examples of things that creationists have had to retract from... Creationists once held that the earth was at the center of the universe. Creationists used to interpret geological events, earthquakes, valcano's, etc... as God exercising his wrath. Before the germ theory, it was thought that infection was a punishment from God. The list goes on and on. It actually affirms the integrity of a discipline when they are willing to accept their faults. The same goes both ways.

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

And what would your response be if others told you

"just more rhetoric from the same old book. Try to make your case without that book."

What may be rather hard to comprehend is the power of large number math. But without that comprehension, it is also impossible to explain it to you.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Which book have I been using to make my case?

But, yes, please do explain "the power of large number math" to me. I'm a little rusty because it's been a while since the numerous advanced calculus, differential equation, and statistics courses I studied at the U.S. Military Academy, ranked the top undergraduate engineering school in the country, in support of my double majors in mathematics and computer science.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Ok, math then.

What are the rate of something happening if it's 1 in a billion...
and it happens hundreds of times each day...
and it happens by all of the existing members of a species...
and the number of the species grows at some stable, yet exponential rate,
and it happens for a period up to a billion years?

Feel free to give examples in terms of cell reproduction rates, insect, dinos, mammals, fish or whatever.

When you get that number, then ask what percent of those have to survive to the point where it can mate for offspring.

We really are waiting for this number.

(nice class name / credential dropping. Not that your background carries any weight in a debate, but it's good to know you should be able to do a Taylor series if needed.)