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: 13
21
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


I believe the nearest-to-true statement might be that "certain scientists are as dogmatic as certain fervent adherents to certain religons."

Actual science is simply making educated observations and trying to prove them in the real world. Humans are fallable. Science tries really, really hard not to be. That doesn't mean that some people trying to practice science aren't fallable.


The difference is, science is self-correcting. For example the original abiogenesis experiment (maggots...) failed and was debunked...and rightfully so.

Religion on the other hand can't admit mistakes. They still insist in talking snakes (complete and utter nonsense), global floods (demonstrably false!) and people surviving inside whales (physically impossible).

If there's one thing history teaches us it's that only those who adapt survive...given that most religions don't adapt, it's pretty clear what their fait is. The same happened to hundreds of previous religions. They can either adapt or continue to throw logic overboard and remain dogmatic.




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GafferUK1981
 

The point is that even scientifically open minded sceptics realize that evolution isn't the WHOLE picture, but that there's something else involved, what I would call a formative causation with original intent driving or drawing evolution towards an anticipated favored outcome, which if true, and I believe there's evidence to support this hypothesis, reveals a degree of fine-point control by a supreme being who's mysterious ways as a first/last cause over history, although plainly evident, we cannot even begin to fathom.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
this piece of crap Illuminati trash has ZERO insight for this World.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
Redshift and the Doppler effect. You are directly observing the expansion of the universe. Technically all you have to do is look up at the night sky.


Those are indicators from which we make educated assumptions. Those also have their issues in our interpretation of the data itself. I dont think you understood the question at all...


Originally posted by Pinke
Darwinism does not = the current theory of evolution.


I agree. I do understand that he took the first steps, but Im not sure why it is brought up so frequently in discussions like these. The theory has evolved drastically, with significantly more data involved and many more individual interpretations which have been peer reviewed. The only idea which any of it negates, however, is the interpretation of a young earth, with a God specifically moving his hand to create humanity in its current form. Much like darwinism vs evolution, this is only the case in a very small portion of the population. "Creationism" is significantly more complex of an idea, and has nothing to do with religion or even a God.

I also dislike the term "intelligent design" as a replacement for the term "creationism" much in the same way you compare darwinism and evolution. It is dubious to me whether or not something would have to be "intelligent," self aware, or even conscious in the way we understand conscious to be defined, to create the universe and as a consequence, humanity.


Last side note ... If intelligent design can satisfy the Essential Criteria
then by all means bring it into the science class room.


As I said previously, the best bet is to provide the tools for children to explore these things themselves. Instead of indoctrination to one way of thinking (which will surely change just like darwinism -> evolution), we should encourage children to expand on even currently accepted ideas and simply present possibilities. Meaning, solely focusing on educating them on what we call "facts" is less scientific than teaching them how to properly explore, uphold, or even negate those facts. There are obvious reasons why this is not the case.

Of the top of my head, the exploration of creationism could be started by testing whether the laws that are in place were self-limiting or if they were boundaries which were in place before the beginning of the universe. As our technology and testing methods evolve, we can start to explore these things even further, but I disagree entirely that we should sweep them under the rug until that point. That is not science. There is a chance I misunderstood your point though. The only criteria which should be required is that the exploration be done according to the scientific method. By basing the validity of the exploration itself on whether or not it agrees with current knowledge (your criteria link), we limit ourselves in exactly the same way as Mr. Nye feels creationist indoctrination imbues. In fact, doing so negates the very spirit of science. Our interpretation of the data could very well be flawed across the board (I dont think it is, but if I am scientific about it, I can not discount the very real possibility that limited knowledge from limited beings can yield limited and even incorrect assumptions), and this would be camouflaged to the inexperienced by the effective utilization of data derived patterns. In that same vein, you may very well be making incorrect assumptions about my experience and education on the matter.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

But if there was evidence, let's say in the singularly unique proportion of the Earth, Moon and Sun, which would prove intelligent design / original intent, WOULD science be self-correcting ie: if the answer is, at least in part "because God designed it this way"..? Let's say if God placed markers into the creation as it pertains to us, just to let us know when the time came that we could detect it, that he was there all along - would science deny it or simply ignore it?


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



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

But if there was evidence, let's say in the unique proportion of the Earth, moon and sun, which would prove intelligent design and an original intent, WOULD science be self-correcting ie: if the answer is, at least in part "because God designed it this way"..?


If there was evidence for a creator...sure. But the "unique proportions of earth, ..." aren't objective evidence.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

I recommend that you undertake a much more in depth and thorough investigation and analysis of the situation, including the degree to which Biblical prophecy was fullfilled in Christ who's conception, birth, and Great Work of the cross were framed in the motion of the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets and stars. You would be utterly astonished before you were even half way through, provided you could approach the investigation free from ANY sort of prior conception or negative bias ie: with a totally open mind.


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



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


I think that is a very good question. To many, I know the answer would be outright denial regardless of what is said otherwise.

To me, the scientific response would be to accept it as "this is simply what we know to the best of our knowledge." Science is a process, so even in that case, it would only be what we know based on current knowledge. It could always change.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


I believe the nearest-to-true statement might be that "certain scientists are as dogmatic as certain fervent adherents to certain religons."

Actual science is simply making educated observations and trying to prove them in the real world. Humans are fallable. Science tries really, really hard not to be. That doesn't mean that some people trying to practice science aren't fallable.


The difference is, science is self-correcting. For example the original abiogenesis experiment (maggots...) failed and was debunked...and rightfully so.

Religion on the other hand can't admit mistakes. They still insist in talking snakes (complete and utter nonsense), global floods (demonstrably false!) and people surviving inside whales (physically impossible).

If there's one thing history teaches us it's that only those who adapt survive...given that most religions don't adapt, it's pretty clear what their fait is. The same happened to hundreds of previous religions. They can either adapt or continue to throw logic overboard and remain dogmatic.



Science is neither self-adapting or self-correcting.

It is manipulated for special interest, which ironically, is the same thing that happens with religion.

Bill Nye is hardly an authority on what or what not to teach someone's children.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 

Yes, but if a certain cosmological outcome or configuration realized in human history could ONLY have occured by design and from a first/last cause imbedded into the creation of creation, science would be rather hard pressed in the face of that kind of causation by original intent to say simply that it's a mystery which we do not yet have the science to sufficiently understand, right? They would then be forced into a position where they would either have to admit it, deny it, or completely ignore it, even if it, the information is right in front of us day after day, night after night.. wouldn't that be amuzing, to be confounded like that, without any other possible explanation than OMG, it's God!


It would serve many people right if and when the day comes, and it may already be here, when science proves God right, and evolution only partly right.


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



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

I recommend that you undertake a much more in depth and thorough investigation and analysis of the situation, including the degree to which Biblical prophecy was fullfilled in Christ who's conception, birth, and Great Work of the cross were framed in the motion of the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets and stars. You would be utterly astonished before you were even half way through, provided you could approach the investigation free from ANY sort of prior c conception or negative bias ie: with a totally open mind.


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


Others have done that...and there are HUNDREDS of cases where the bible is DEMONSTRABLY WRONG: LINK

As for prophecies...again, there are HUNDREDS of cases where the bible is demonstrably wrong: LINK




Christ who's conception, birth, and Great Work of the cross were framed in the motion of the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets and stars.


What on earth does that even mean???



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


I believe the nearest-to-true statement might be that "certain scientists are as dogmatic as certain fervent adherents to certain religons."

Actual science is simply making educated observations and trying to prove them in the real world. Humans are fallable. Science tries really, really hard not to be. That doesn't mean that some people trying to practice science aren't fallable.


The difference is, science is self-correcting. For example the original abiogenesis experiment (maggots...) failed and was debunked...and rightfully so.

Religion on the other hand can't admit mistakes. They still insist in talking snakes (complete and utter nonsense), global floods (demonstrably false!) and people surviving inside whales (physically impossible).

If there's one thing history teaches us it's that only those who adapt survive...given that most religions don't adapt, it's pretty clear what their fait is. The same happened to hundreds of previous religions. They can either adapt or continue to throw logic overboard and remain dogmatic.



Science is neither self-adapting or self-correcting.

It is manipulated for special interest, which ironically, is the same thing that happens with religion.

Bill Nye is hardly an authority on what or what not to teach someone's children.


Given his job he kinda is



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
The test of evolution is to examine a biological organ or part for irreducible complexity. So far no organism on the planet passes the test for irreducible complexity. If this happened there would be at least a hint at intelligent design but there isn't and creationism is just a last ditch attempt at religion to prevent man kind from moving on from medieval indoctrination.

There is nothing in this world apart from man made or even animal made objects that are examples of intelligent design.

As there isn't the slightest shred of evidence for creationism or the existence of a god for that matter then why should any credence be given to ideas based on absolutely no evidence. Religion and creationism should be dismissed as human error but blind faith keeps people clinging on for nothing.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
Your theory of evolution equates to "change". Yes things change. Are seasons now examples of evolution?


Wow, now you are really reaching with this one!! LOL
This is another really funny example of why creationists, or whatever it is you are, should not engage in science discussions. How extraorindinaryily ignorant.


Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins

wiki

My 6 year old is a carbon copy of his father, with my unique nose. That is genetic change. He is still human, retained our brunette characteristics.

If there was no such thing as evolution, there would be no genetic changes, and each child would end up with a random selection of characteristics that would be unrelated to his family. He could of ended up a green eyed, red haired asian kid, with four arms, if it was random change.

Seasons are a result of the Earth revolving around the Sun, the change in intensity of light drives the seasons. Completely different science. Evolution has nothing to do with climeatology, though climeatology drives evolution. Which is why in places like the Artic with low levels of light, there are hardly any plants and the polar bears are white, mean, and sometimes fat.

This is 2nd grade science. If you can't grasp those points, there really is no point in debating with you.

BTW, those changes are pretty predictable too, till man messes with it.



What about aging?

What about it?

Genes are a powerful indicator in how you age. Environment, diet, diseases and health habits determine how well you age.


No one is declaring change to be a theory.

There are some goofballs who do. Why don't you become their leader? Because any change is usually explained by the science domain it falls in. Why does the weather change? Ask a meterologist. Why does the beach change? Ask a geologist. Why do people age? Ask a gerontologist.



But i see this when Darwinists are pinned up against the wall..


No,not at all. You are the one who doesn't know the difference between climeatology and biology.

I am the one having to explain the basics of life to you that 6 year old understands. Your parents must not of read to you enough. That is a good example of natural selection.


They start declaring EVERY observable change over time as a demonstration of "evolution".


You are the one who can't tell the difference between a snowball and a dog. Evolution only explains the differences in biology. And very well. And change in biological entities over time is what evolution is. Just like EVERY snow flake is a result of climate.

So name one biological, meaning plant or animal, that hasn't changed as a result of evolution.


In this definition evolution is a label given to the underlying phenomenon of change.

Only in species.


This isn't something to even be considered science.

You don't even know what science is, much less be able to make strong opinions about it. Your parents really should of read to you more.


Caveman observed and documented change.

Yes, an evolutionary necessity, so when the animals migrated, they knew when so they could eat. See how that works? Smart humans! If they didn't, they starved and died off.


Everyone does everyday.

Have too. Instead of hunting mammoth, we go to the office. Still gotta eat though.


If that is all evolution is than why the attack on Christians over it?

Because the success of the human species is our brains. We are smart. So when people act dumb, and ignore an entire event that made us who we are, and pretend it is the result is by an imaginary man in the sky that no one has met, then it is counter-productive to the advancement of the species.



I don't know any Christians that would argue that things change over time.

You are insisting that things change, yet Christians can't. It is mal-adaptive and counter-intuitive to the survival of the species.


What's is there to even be taught about it?


Teach who, what?


Class today we are going to discuss the TRUTH of evolution. Evolution is change. You are now a scientist. End of lesson.


I think you need to graduate to 3rd grade science on up before you can decide that someone else is a scientist. How arrogant.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


LOL.

someone please stop the broken record.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Serdgiam
 

Yes, but if a certain cosmological outcome or configuration realized in human history could ONLY have occured by design and from a first/last cause imbedded into the creation of creation, science would be rather hard pressed in the face of that kind of causation by original intent to say simply that it's a mystery which we do not yet have the science to sufficiently understand, right? They would then be forced into a position where they would either have to admit it, deny it, or completely ignore it, even if it, the information is right in front of us day after day, night after night.. wouldn't that be amuzing, to be confounded like that, without any other possibly explanation than OMG, it's God!


That would absolutely be amusing


The issue though is rarely in the data itself, but our interpretation of it and also our knowledge of what data should be collected in any given case. It is because of this that science grows, unless it is turned into a religion with blind adherence to established principles and ideas. And I do feel there is a very real danger of this happening, if it isnt already.

You forgot that it puts science in a position to simply explore it as well.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
May I also comment that I am fed up of reading the following statement on religious topics.

"if you read the bible with a open mind"

Please do not write that, it is a terrible statement, just say what you mean which is.

"if you read the bible and chose to believe every word"

I have an open mind, I believe in UFO's and certain conspiracy theories but I simply can't believe in something so irrational and disproven as religion.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ


Christ who's conception, birth, and Great Work of the cross were framed in the motion of the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets and stars.


What on earth does that even mean???

I've already posted the answer to that, but you glossed over it..



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
May I also comment that I am fed up of reading the following statement on religious topics.

"if you read the bible with a open mind"

Please do not write that, it is a terrible statement, just say what you mean which is.

"if you read the bible and chose to believe every word"

I have an open mind, I believe in UFO's and certain conspiracy theories but I simply can't believe in something so irrational and disproven as religion.


I believe what people mean when they say "read the bible with an open mind", is "read the bible with an open heart", which of course is a pretty important distinction.

Religion or not, I believe there are a lot of hardened/jaded/and bitter folks on this website who could use a little heartfelt self reflection....





edit on 28-8-2012 by HIWATT because: added space



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 

Here's but one small example of what I'm talking about, but it's just PART of the confounding picture, or should I say the signature at the bottom of the creative "artwork".

Squaring the circle with the Earth and Moon



Looks simple, I realize, but do you have ANY idea how unusual and extraordinary this is.,?!

We didn't even recognize this before a crop circle pointed it out to us a few years ago, but that's not the half of it.

There are a number of utterly astounding coincidences in terms of the Earth, Sun, Moon relationship, which do not fit or "square" with modern cosmology and astrophysics.

In fact, many scientists have looked into this, and were left utterly flabbergasted, not just in terms of relative proportion, but in regards to the location and the motion of the moon which they exclaim is in the one location it shouldn't be. There are also strange pendalum phenomenon in regards to the Earth/Moon relationship which astrophysicists deny, yet that are replicatable.


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




top topics



 
21
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join