It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
"Creationism" is just a word made up by people who happen to draw a paycheck from belief in Christianity, they needed something to counter science since its explaining some things that the bible/religion can't. Honestly I don't even know why anyone entertains the idea. It's pretty obvious that some in religion are actually offended by proper science and want to make a mockery out of it and wreck our education system even more so than it already is. Why? Because they believe their religion is the right one not only over ALL other religions in the world, but over common sense and the scientific method as well.

Saying there's no such thing as evolution is about as stupid as saying the same thing about gravity, IMO. When the common cold becomes resistant against certain antibiotics why do you think that is? Jesus? Magic? For the first time in tens of thousands of years humankind has advanced to the point where we can extend our lifespan, cure many of humanities ailments and even regrow organs so people can live, but lets put a stop to everything because some people ignorantly believe in a 2,000 year old bad idea.

Teaching kids anything about a religion that preaches Armageddon puts the "mental" in detrimental since our species now has the capability to do just that. When your judgement day comes, it wont be any god that did it.
edit on 28-8-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigcountry08
I'm a Christian and I love science, and I believe in Micro evolution.

What is the difference between micro and macro evolution? Are you aware, that this unspecified divide only exists in the minds of creationists?



The problem with this clip and with macro evolutionist is that most of their claims have no proof to back them up.

What claims have no proof to back them up?



If macro evolution were true the majority of the fossil record should consist of transitional species, because the area between A & B animal would be far more vast then the modern animal and the original animal.

This assumption is based on what? Do you know how rare event fossilization actually is? If creation was true, we would discover 100s of millions of years old fossils that were identical to contemporary species like bears, humans, penguins, rhinos, etc. Of course, not a single one has ever been discovered. How does the pic below make you feel? A) is modern chimpanzee. The rest progress from older to newer hominid bones.




Plus at best most fossilized skeleton are only discovered 80% complete leaving the "scientist" to build the rest from imagination.

Why the quotation marks? For imagination, look at the brightly colored parts in the above picture. Totally not logical additions, right?



carbon dating has also been shown many times to be almost completely unreliable and cannot date anything past 50,000 years.

Of course, there are numerous other radiometric dating methods that are used for dating older specimen that don't make use of carbon.



The study of macro Evolution is only about 150 years old, yet the scientific community takes it as almost a completely perfect theory.

Because the evidence is so strong. No other theory in the history of mankind has received such strong supporting evidence.



Which is another problem evolution is not a fact it is a hypothesis in order for it to be considered a fact, you have to be able to test it, and test it multiple times getting the same outcome.

150 years of testing agrees with evolution. There is not a single thing that contradicts it.



Until this happens evolution is just another hypothesis, and is just as valid as creationism.

Evolution is a fact (a natural phenomenon) and a theory (modern synthesis). Unlike evolution, creationism can't be tested or proven wrong. It's just an idea. Me saying that purple 6-dimensional lizards farted humans into existence is just as valid as any other flavor of creationism.
edit on 28-8-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Do you?

Theory:
1 .A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.

well considering evolution hasen't been tested, or hasn't had tests done to prove that it is fact then this definition can't be used for it or creationisim.

2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

still dosent fit for creationism or evolution because there aren't any factual theories on how life/modern animals came to be.

Hypothesis:

1. A proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

Well that fits pretty well for both evolution and creationisim, considering neither have and tests that prove them to be fact.

2. A mere assumption or guess.

And now were spot on for both, so how about we all stop letting our emotions take control of the debate.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ironclad
I remember a while ago I was in a museum looking at Dinosaur fossils when a creationist school group came through.

I remember the teachers explaining to the children that these giant monsters were walking the earth just a few hundred years ago with the native australians and the other mega-fauna (must have been pretty croweded out on those open planes).

Funny that the Aboriginals have no memory passed down from their ancestors or in cave paintings of such beastsa walking amongst them (with the exeption of mega-Fauna).

I remember asking the lecturer where he studied and what qualifications he had and the reply was masters degree in bible science...

This is an actual academic form of study for this day and age?

So it isn't just aAmerica where this primitive view of the world exists.

What some of our children (our future leaders) are being taught is just frightening..!!
edit on 8/28/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/28/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)


Your not that smart or correct
This is an image of a dinosaur painted by Australian Aboriginals

www.answersingenesis.org...

Bunyips were described as well. Looking remarkably like dinosaurs
But hey I guess you know EVERYTHING
creation.com...

Everybody is wrong but you cant be. Any recording of something you cant see on Wikipedia is fake
www.cryptozoology.com...
Where did you study?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


what does your picture prove? I can take a mouse, a hamster, a rat, and a rabbit scull and place them all next to each other and say look evolution !!!!!

every human skull is completly different i can take you to a store right now and show you some pretty crazy looking ones and if we took a bunch and put them next to each other they would look like progression.

Things evolutionist say are facts.

the tail bone is useless, and is probably left over from when we had tails.False.

There are several muscles that attach to the tailbone, including the gluteus maximus, the levator ani, the sphincter ani externis and the coccygeus. These muscles all play important roles in standing, bowel control and pelvic floor support.

The appendix is useless and is a left over orgin.False.

it has been found that the appendix is actually used to store benificial bacterial for the body and helps to keep the digestive system working.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The universe is grand in scale. In fact, it is downright EPIC.

From what we can perceive so far, the estimated number of stars in the known universe is roughly
70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

This number is staggeringly large. So large that it represents (by rough estimate) one star
for every grain of sand on earth "IF" the entire earth were uniformly covered in sand to a depth of 550
kilometers.

And yet, we humans take a very myopic (and self-serving) view of the earth and its living inhabitants.
We believe that we are special, that we are unique, that we are gifted with an attentive and
concerned creator who watches, and listens. A creator who records every human conversation,
every thought, every intent. A creator who notes with certainty every infraction and every act of
goodwill....a creator who built this massive universe for our sake alone ostensibly as clearing house
for souls....

A creator who can bring into existence every individual living cell of every individual living thing; who
can control every atom of all matter in all the far reaches of space, and yet somehow cannot ascertain
whether each human personality is worthy of his love--without first unleashing upon them
a tenuous and illogical "freewill" where each is allowed to act of his own recognisance for the
purpose of deciding his fate in the after-life.....And somehow this omniscient being, who knows
everything that was/is/and will be, does not know your next move, or your next thought.


Religion is superstition. You have been taught this superstition from birth. It has been reinforced by
respected peers and it has caused the neural pathways in your brain to solidify like rock into
a meaning so intense that it can become your entire raison d'etre. I cannot persuade, or coerce you
from this belief anymore than Galileo could persuade the Catholic church that the earth revolved
around the sun, and I don't want, or need to.

Believe as you will, and teach your children as you will. The zeitgeist of truth is a moveable feast-
today's widely held paradigm is tomorrow's superstition....only time will release us from our ignorance
and superstition.

And maybe one day science will bring right up to the face of God (if he exists)......And perhaps that
is what he has been waiting for all along.

edit on 28-8-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


So your opinion entitles the truth?
The truth is, there is no real truth or fallacies.. we are all painting a vivid picture that somewhat describes what we are all experiencing. We should join together, rather than have trivial quarrels about who is right and who is wrong. Wait.. now that's part of human nature that won't evolve



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bigcountry08
 


Creationism and Evolution should not be compared, one has no base. Others at least has some and its growing the more we discover..

Creationism has the same credibility as tooth fairy and Batman,

Its funny how some people pick and chose, "oh no micro evolution can be proven right away! we better separate it from Evolution, so we can still hate on the main evolution and not give them credit for micro evolution".. please, a scientist will look at ALL EVOLUTION as EVOLUTION.

Accumulated Micro evolution leads to Species differentiation over millennia.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xoanon


"Creationism is not appropriate for children".

-Bill Nye
io9.com...


Bill is absolutely 100% correct, in my opinion.

There is not time in today's fast paced world for the esoteric in grammar school, middle school or high school. The whole country needs to retool and there is too great a need for an emphasis on mathematics, engineering, biology and CS.

Fact is, those that come to seek God will find ample evidence in the aforementioned sciences, just as those that tend towards atheism will find what they seek in the same subjects and material.

Rinse.

Repeat.


I agree, and when we really take a good hard look there is evidence of both evolution and creation by intelligent design, particularly when we examine the strange and highly coincidental relationship between the earth, moon and sun (coincidence is an understatement).

Creationism, as it's typically sold by the fundamentalists doesn't need to be accepted for the entire prophetic framework of the Bible to hold water (see my sig for more).

Take this, for example:


Originally posted by NewAgeMan

The Day of the Cross
www.bethlehemstar.net...


Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Day of the Cross
 


I often wonder.. of ALL the planets in the present-moment living universe, inhabiting sentient, intelligent life (observers), how many (more than one...?) might have their single moon, perfectly exclipse their sun, whereby the shadow of the inhabiting observer planet, also perfectly encircles the visible moon's circumference..

And that's not the HALF of it..


Maybe things are even MORE solipsistic than I originally thought..


Originally posted by NewAgeMan
And just so that the whole thing isn't TOO ah.. narcissistically solipsistic (cosmologically speaking), Jesus Christ is as much the son of man as he is the son of God and the bright morning star, whereby we are all made, at least in potentia, in the image and likeness of God, and who although last (most recent), are first, and not to be excluded, but enveloped, as the Prodigal Son returned home at last, and the lost sheep recovered.


“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

while the morning stars (sons of God) sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

~ Job 38





Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
And frankly, it's what it says about us as human beings in the creation, intrinsic to a longggg cosmic evolutionary process, and as children of a loving God (see Phi Ratio Proportion) in the "heavenly household" of God as a first/last cause and as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whereby Jesus made it all about US in the first place - that is equally if not even MORE astounding!



And we will come to know the truth, and the truth will set us free, and yet, if we are freed for his sake why then, we shall be truly free indeed!

"And as my father hath first sent me, even so send I, you."

Deny ignorance!

Tally ho!

NAM aka Bob

bump to get this on latest page for consideration (deep grokking).

All the Best,

NAM

Once a formative causation with original intent is established, then what we have is BOTH evolution AND intelligent design (intelligent is an understatement). Through this third way of understanding, both sides of the "argument" are satisfied, while drawing more people to take a look at the Bible and the prophetic framework running through it unto... epiphany, and what an epiphany it is!

Re: the God theory - additional research might include the work of Physicists Amit Goswami (self aware univeerse and monistic idealism - consciousness as the ground of all being and becoming ie: downward not upward causation), and Bernard Haisch and Irvin Lazlo re: Zero Point Field or Akashic Field, the implication of which would involve non-localized information sharing within the context of a singular, interpenetrating, cosmological unity.


Prayer: For the sake of this "debate" DO NOT LET THIS POST GO BY UNEXAMINED..!


edit on 28-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bigcountry08
 


How long it has been around has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the science. Plate tectonics has only been accepted for about 60 years, yet no one will dispute it today.

Oncology didn't grap hold until the 19th century. But dang, if you wouldn't run to an oncologist if you got cancer.

It wasn't until the discovery of DNA did they even know what caused cancer.

As for radiocarbon dating, this is why I say over and over, thumpers shouldn't try to use science against scientists, because you always end up looking silly.

Teh creationist sites who claim that radiocarbon dating isn't accurate is going off the statement of a man who argued against radiocarbon dating.....in 1968.

And whose theories were proven to be completely bunk immediately afterwards.

What you people also forget is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and scientists use different means of measurement to confirm the date of something to determine dates.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Your not that smart or correct
This is an image of a dinosaur painted by Australian Aboriginals

www.answersingenesis.org...

Painted by a contemporary aboriginal who has no doubt seen pictures of dinosaurs and such. Is that supposed to prove something? Please, try to use your brains while posting here



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Creationism has no place in a public school. It is not the schools job to indoctrinate children into the belief of God. Want your kid to learn creationism, send them to a private school or teach it to them yourself.
edit on 28-8-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigcountry08
what does your picture prove? I can take a mouse, a hamster, a rat, and a rabbit scull and place them all next to each other and say look evolution !!!!!

It shows gradual change over time, transitional forms between a chimpanzee -like ancestor and modern humans. Fossils that were not supposed to exist according to you. Please do the mouse, hamster, rat, and a rabbit thing and we'll see if it makes any sense, as you claim. Keep in mind that your skulls should also be dated and then arranged from the oldest to the newest. It's not like the ones I posted were arranged for "best fit" or something. Also, address all the other points I made in the previous post. Thank you, and good luck.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


I have no problem with children learning about creationism in public school. But, it should be instructed as literature, not fact, and all creation stories should be included, including the ones about the world being held up by Atlas, standing on a turtle, standing on an elephant!



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I agree, it should be taught, but not as fact and, all forms of creation should be included. not just the 2000yr old judaio god version.

If i were Greek i should be pissed about how they called Zeus a myth!!!!

edit on 8/28/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by Ironclad
I remember a while ago I was in a museum looking at Dinosaur fossils when a creationist school group came through.

I remember the teachers explaining to the children that these giant monsters were walking the earth just a few hundred years ago with the native australians and the other mega-fauna (must have been pretty croweded out on those open planes).

Funny that the Aboriginals have no memory passed down from their ancestors or in cave paintings of such beastsa walking amongst them (with the exeption of mega-Fauna).

I remember asking the lecturer where he studied and what qualifications he had and the reply was masters degree in bible science...

This is an actual academic form of study for this day and age?

So it isn't just aAmerica where this primitive view of the world exists.

What some of our children (our future leaders) are being taught is just frightening..!!
edit on 8/28/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/28/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)


Your not that smart or correct
This is an image of a dinosaur painted by Australian Aboriginals

www.answersingenesis.org...

Bunyips were described as well. Looking remarkably like dinosaurs
But hey I guess you know EVERYTHING
creation.com...

Everybody is wrong but you cant be. Any recording of something you cant see on Wikipedia is fake
www.cryptozoology.com...
Where did you study?


That is it! I am absolutely going to stop believing in evolution because an aboriginie drew a Sinclair!!

Whatever was I thinking?

You debunk wikipedia but someone's cave drawing gives you all the answers. No wonder you are so lost.

The first one, Sinclair:

First off, a plesiosaurus is not a dinosaur, it is a sauropterygian.

The drawings that are shown, are not anatomically possible, because an animal of that size, would not be able to pump enough blood to the head and back. It couldn't exist.

Third, plesiosurs fossils have been found in Austrailia. Not that hard for an old guy smoking something out there to see the fossil and make a story out of it.

Fourth, the actual story of Yarru is about a large snake, not a plesiosaurus.

Last, how do you know that some anxious creationists, like the neurotics on this board, didn't paint it and go, see???


Do yourself a favor and stay away from creationist websites.

And before anyone brings out the platypus, the fossilized hat or the fossilized boot, or the footprints in Utah, they have all be debunked. Save yourself some time.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by axslinger
All one has to do is watch "A Case for Christ" and the series, "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution" and it becomes abundantly clear that evolution is comedy. Once you see how many assumptions are made in the theory of evolution, because they aren't provable using science, (how ironic is that?),


Such as??



it becomes clear that it takes a greater leap of faith be believe that everything came from an explosion. An explosion of "nothing". I think it's so cool when "nothing" explodes and creates "something". Like an entire universe. And that something, somehow, (unexplained by science), "evolves" into everything. I'm laughing just writing this.


I am laughing too, at you. Because you can't tell the difference between cosmology and biology.


There are simply too many creatures that could not survive if they didn't have all of their present characteristics.


That is kind of how it works...????

Do you have a specific example?




They would die, and dead creatures don't evolve.


Glad you at least understand it that much.



To put it simply, they had to be that wall all along to exist in the first place.


Like what???



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 

If intelligent design, enveloping (and transcending) evolution, according to a formative causation with original intent, if that could be proven, would you or anyone on the anti-religious bandwagon accept it, or even consider it?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigcountry08
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


[what does your picture prove? I can take a mouse, a hamster, a rat, and a rabbit scull and place them all next to each other and say look evolution !!!!!


Very good! They are all rodents and probably decended from the same ancestor.


every human skull is completly different i can take you to a store right now and show you some pretty crazy looking ones and if we took a bunch and put them next to each other they would look like progression.


oh
Good feeling gone.

No, all skulls pretty much look the same except what makes our features. If they don't, that is usually a mutation, or an accident.
The fact that you can't tell, or refuse to see the difference between evolutionary, and normal skulls, says a lot.



the tail bone is useless, and is probably left over from when we had tails.False.
[There are several muscles that attach to the tailbone, including the gluteus maximus, the levator ani, the sphincter ani externis and the coccygeus. These muscles all play important roles in standing, bowel control and pelvic floor support.


Actually, I give you credit for actually looking a little more into it. The tailbone is a leftover from not needing a tail anymore when we stood upright. But, the tailbone still has a purpose, which is why it hasn't been lost altogether. In evolution, whatever works, stays.



The appendix is useless and is a left over orgin.False.

it has been found that the appendix is actually used to store benificial bacterial for the body and helps to keep the digestive system working.


Actually the answer is somewhere in the middle. The appendix was thought to be useless, was found to keep bacteria, but because of modern lifestyles, is found to be useless again. Except in third world countries where the populations are less dense, it may still be used. And interestingly, the rates of appendicitis are much lower there.
edit on 28-8-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCL1150
Why do so many people want to take God out of the equation when comes to creationism and evolution... Evolution needs the finger of God for direction, it wouldn't know where to progress!

The entire NWO "god is a myth" agenda revolves around removing God from society.

The real hidden agenda is to distract and feed falsehoods with biased reasoning and logic, their methods are to keep the truth as FAR away from you and me as is possible.

Atheism is only one part of that stealth agenda designed to control you and everyone in the world.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join