-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.

No it's not.

Believing everything came from earlier species is nothing more than following what we've learned. We have wolves. At some point, they became domesticated and then forcibly (by the hand of men) evolved into the thousand breeds we have today. Can you look at a massive russian hound the size of a bear and say it came from a toy chihuahua? That's the question being asked. The answer would be no but they both came from the wolf which is today, virtually unchanged.

If this is tolerable to accept, then after one learns some biology, some DNA, some genetics, etc., it is easy to understand how frogs came from some fish or eel type creature. Grow that knowledge more and more and it's easy to see the entire chain.

When you get through the entire chain back to the origins of the universe, every single step makes 100% sense... except for maybe the first spark of life from an inanimate object. Thankfully, that was recreated in a lab earlier this year so we're all out of leaps of faith.

Question: Is it a miracle by a supernatural being that my friend's toaster talks and plays music during Sunday mornings? (careful, it's a trick question)

Hand-waving

It's interesting how you jump from the obvious changes possible by genetic filtering in the canine family to some vague hand-waving that it is 'easy to see' how a fish changes into a frog. It kind of reminds me of the old biologists who assumed the cell was a simple thing and who later realized that it was an intricate, incredibly complex machine.

Check out 'Signature in the Cell' by Stephen C. Meyer sometime!

I agree with you. However, I

I agree with you. However, I am unaware of an abiogenesis event being created in a lab. Could you send me the publication that you are referring to?

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

Phhh!

You would ask me that. I know it was on PhysOrg and probably around early spring but I have no idea what search term would have the best luck. None I've tried have come up with anything so far.

From (bad) memory: They created many different chemical concoctions and ran them all through this procedure which (if memory serves) vibrates it while subjecting it to odd temperature swings. The result was about one in 10E20 (empirically estimated) and the living result only lasted about 2 minutes.

My take was that if the specific combination of elements, compounds and vibrations were all present in the same location when some temp altering event occurred, there would be 10E20+ chances for it to happen. Take error into account and it's even likely that it's still happening today in the wild.

Not sure if this has been

Not sure if this has been successful. I know the question of abiogenesis has a very scientific explanation, and I hope that within my lifetime it is solved. Synthetic self replicating molecules will be a major blow to the creation theory... However, I'm not optimistic that many of these people's minds would be changed. There's no amount of evidence that can convince a delusional person.

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

Please explain the logic

of disproving intelligent design, by someone artificially creating a cell from inorganic matter?

I didn't say this would prove

I didn't say this would prove or disprove anything... I also didn't say anything about intelligent design. Creation science and intelligent design are two different theories. So please explain the logic of your question.

I think the famous last sentance from Darwin's book answers this best:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved"

Even Darwin could not imagine an abiogenesis event accounting for the initial state of living matter.

As of yet, all living cells come from other living cells and are coded for by some form of a DNA or RNA. Abiogenesis would hold that a living, self replicating molecule, which contains some form of genetic information, is formed by a colision of inorgainic material. If this could be replicated in a laboritory, then it would, at the very least, demonstrate that it is possible to get living from non-living. Something that has never been observed.

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

I was refering to your comment

"Synthetic self replicating molecules will be a major blow to the creation theory"

Depending on who you talk to about intelligent design changes what they are talking about. Some say that aliens came here and designed life. But when a creationist brings it up they are saying God is the most intelligent being and he intelligently created everything, with order and natural laws.

Frankly I would love to see us crack the code on how to make cells from non living things, although I think we have a few hundred years of science to go before that happens. I would like to point out also that often atheist say that since creationist say that God did everything we are anti science3, but my attitude is that even though I believe God I still want to know how it works. Hence science.

.

.

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

Bill Nye exposed by creationists and scientists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BUHioeA7ss

Bill Nye also shows no understanding of the difference between historical science and observational science. He really should be called 'Bill Nye—the evolution guy or not so science guy'.

This video is such crap.

There's zero logic and infinite errant assumptions.

On top of that, they are censoring the comments so nothing critical gets through. Kind of like when he says at 7:00 "you just want to make sure they only hear about evolution and that's it."

So hypocritical.

15 Questions for Evolutionists

http://creation.com/15-questions

How did life originate?
How did the DNA code originate?
How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’?
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

and more...

Who created God? Why did God

Who created God?

Why did God create so many creatures only to later cause them to become extinct?

Why is there so much pain and suffering in the world?

Why did God create so many people, only to let them die of starvation?

I could go on and on but I'll save you the embarrassment.
It is true… There are certain things that science has yet to answer. But if scientists were to say “God must have done it” every time they encountered a problem that couldn’t be immediately explained, there would be no advances in our scientific understanding. The beauty of scientific investigation is that, through time, we are able to find answers to extremely complex problems. It’s such a copout to just give up and say “well, God must have done it… let’s go grab a beer.” Answers are not always obvious, and they often counter what seems logical. For example, how is it possible for all of the components of the giraffe neck: bones, muscles, nerves, blood vessels, etc… to have synchronously evolved to a greater length? For the longest time scientists were stumped by this question… So god must have done it right? Wrong! We now have a complete understanding of pleiotropic genes, and how one gene can influence multiple traits. Another classic example is the geocentric model of the solar system… When you look into the sky at night, you will observe that all the planets and stars appear to be moving. But it doesn’t feel like we are moving. So the logical assumption was that God must have placed the earth at a stationary position at the center of the universe. No need to investigate right? Just imagine how detrimental the “god must have done it” attitude would be towards science.

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

This type of question

This type of question disappeared with the prime mover theory of Aristotle, that proved that there is something that moved the universe, and is not moved itself.

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/aristotle_prime_mover.htm

It does not prove revelation by itself, but it did make all arguments other than deism or religion impossible.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

read genesis and the book of

read genesis and the book of enoch tie them both together and you will have your answers.

GoodSamaritan's picture

There is no embarrassment to be saved

because those questions expose your ignorance of God's Word. That's ok, though, because ignorance can be fixed with sufficient study. All of those questions have been answered from Scripture ad nauseum for two thousand years, so I'm sure you can fill some of the gaps in your understanding with a quick search of the Internet.

Oh, and your copout retort, "well, God must have done it", is just a strawman argument indicative of laziness in thought. But, hey, no need to investigate the real arguments, right?

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

So if i told you I communicated with God

Would you believe me?

Which men do you decide who to trust? I'm assuming you don't trust the mainstream media, but you trust the authors who wrote the Bible? They were just the media of their time. Jesus didn't write anything himself. Everything was transcribed by men. What makes them trustworthy?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Depends on what you mean by "communicated"

Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, and prayer is communication with God. That's a fairly common activity for billions of people. If, on the other hand, you're hearing voices in your head that are not your own then I might suggest you seek professional help.

The authors of the Bible were the media of their time? Hmmm... crucified, stoned to death, sawn in pieces, beheaded, speared, burned alive, thrown from the top of a building, beaten to death, exiled. Well, I suppose if we started doing those things to the MSM then we might encourage more truth-telling on the airwaves.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

What about them?

How about the persecution of "Christian heresy" that happened for 1000+ years after the Christians gained power?

GoodSamaritan's picture

I'll answer your question with a question...

Did Jesus teach His disciples to persecute those who disagreed with Him? If not, then perhaps those doing the persecuting weren't true Christians.

Anyone can claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Actually being one requires obedience to His commands since He claimed to be God in human form. This brings to mind a couple of His most famous teachings:

"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12 (NASB)

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Mark 12:31 (NASB)

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Irrelevant

I guess honorary doctorate degrees make him an expert?

Bachelor Degrees in Mechanical Engineering typically do not delve into the rationale of rationalization.

Shucks, Bill Cosby must have been right about eating all that Jello Pudding... and Obamessiah's Nobel Peace Prize is above board, toboot.

Science

..is less appealing now because God has been taken out of the equation.

donvino

Yes & No

If you are referring to the type of science that says:
Fluoride in your drinking water is healthy.
Vaccines tainted with mercury is healthy.
Mercury in your teeth is healthy.
Properly made colloidal silver is toxic.
The earth is heating up unnaturally.
Then, yes, I'm anti that kind of science.
But if you are referring to real science that impartially gathers facts and works ceaselessly to explain those facts then NO, I'm not anti that kind of science.

I'm anti-Blowing big bucks on a PhD's bogus grant application

I'm anti-Blowing big bucks on a PhD's bogus grant application. My wife works in academia. She forwards me the kind of grant applications that float around the university this time of year. What a lot of pointless bull crap! And its all for multi-year multi-million dollar studies that can never EVER conclude.

Another waste is Palaeontology. Sure, everyone loves dinosaurs. But applying for grants to figure out whether T-Rex had blonde feathers under its armpits is utterly stupid. Its not advancing the cause of science, its totally stupid.

Ah, but its up to the PhDs, who earned their doctorate degree not in the cause of science but how to milk the grants system for every stinking dime they can get.

And don't even mention AIDS research! How much advancement into the cure for HIV is achieved when these foundation personnel fly first class to Amsterdam EVERY weekend and stay at five-star hotels?

Science? Science, my fanny!

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

HIV is one of government's worst boondoggles

You are correct. I'm just throwing out estimated numbers to make a point, but something along the lines of 10 million dollars PER AMINO ACID OF THE HIV VIRUS has thrown into HIV research. This is absolutely ridiculous. Money is being squandered and poorly directed by the central planners.

It is no secret to everyone on the DailyPaul that government inhibits everything it touches. The problem is that many people here are blaming science! The government is building worthless infrastructure, like bridges to nowhere, but no one is blaming structural engineering or the engineers. They are blaming the bureaucrats. Yet for some reason scientists and PhDs and science itself are often taking the blunt of the blame. Do they deserve some of the blame? Yes of course, just like the engineers who accepted government money to construct a bridge to nowhere are also partially to blame. But science is not the problem. It is government.

Also, I think Bill Nye is an asshole and a dumbass statist, but he is still right about evolution.

LOL

How much money has been spent to answer the question "Does a bear shit in the woods?"

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Unite not divide

Issues like gays, abortion and this are promoted to divide us. We need to unite and fight for liberty and not divide and become weaker.

To discard creationism is to

To discard creationism is to close your mind. A closed mind is bad for science.
To discard science is also to close your mind. A closed mind is bad for religion.
Both lead to ignorance.
What if everything we are focusing on scientifically is nothing more than a few pixels on a screen?
If minds are closed then all that will be discovered is the nature of a few pixels.
I don't subscribe to the creationism that is closed minded and discards science. But I do believe that there is a much larger world beyond what we can observe inside our little bubble we call a universe.
I keep an open mind to science and the existence of a higher intelligence. It is not difficult at all for me to carry both. Both lead me toward truth and truth is what I seek.

Bill Nye illustrated unintentionally why a closed mind harms science. When I watch Bill Nye's video I can't help but think how small he has made himself. For me to think like him is to focus on a single point and not look around. It is also ignorant of him to say that innovation doesn't happen when people believe in their religion. This nation became the most technically advanced and wealthiest while 95% or more believed in a deity. Science would not discard this reality, but he conveniently did. Truth didn't matter.

Ignorance exists in those professing science and those professing religion but it doesn't have to. Just have and open mind and seek truth and don't force it on others. Show them doors, let them decide to walk through it.

Personally there is nothing in science that contradicts the truth I seek and the truth I've found. if you seek it you will find it, and you will see like I did how small and insignificant we are, and how small and insignificant our universe is. That although science is seeking truth, it is seeking the truth of a pixel while ignoring the screen and everything around it. Not that that is wrong, just not absolutely the only way. And folks like Nye are discouraging our kids to look around, to put aside critical thinking, creativity, imagination, the very things that ideas are made of.

Let the kids learn for themselves, let them choose their path. If there is anything to argue about is just that doors are being locked by ignorance.

It's a strawman on both sides.

The theists are fighting against a cartoon version of atheism.
The atheists are fighting against a cartoon version of theism.

They both keep telling themselves that there's only black or white, hearing and understanding the opposition's arguments yet forever forcing themselves to make it political. Here's a thought: deregulate it.

You're both right, anyway. There can be a middle ground. I for one have no problem believing in a God completely compatible with the trajectory of modern scientific theory.

Perhaps on an individual

Perhaps on an individual level, one side or the other may be charaterized in a "cartoonish" way, but the facts remain the same. Science depends on evidence and repeatable testing. Religions have no such rigor applied to them.