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: 16
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Are you a part of that process yourself?

If so, do tell us of your contributions to the scientific community! I think itd be pretty cool.

If not, well, you really dont see the point of the correlation being made?




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Are you a part of that process yourself?

If so, do tell us of your contributions to the scientific community! I think itd be pretty cool.

If not, well, you really dont see the point of the correlation being made?


Wait...are you implying that unless people do every single experiment themselves they can't know?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

That didn't describe the orbit of the moon.

It doesn't describe anything really...not even the earth is a circle, so they didn't even get that right

What are you laughing at? It's called squaring the circle, just one of many HIGHLY unusual properties of the Earth, Moon, Sun relationship.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Funny how you can't seem to name that "something". You can't seriously still claim "intent" is what I'm missing because that would be complete and utter nonsense

Of course, it would HAVE to be, wouldn't it?


Oh and that "something" would involve the real star of Bethlehem (info provided), and a red moon rising at 3:00pm on April 3rd, 33AD (info also provided).




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


Get a planetarium software (I recommend Celestia if you're on a Mac) and you'll notice that this isn't a rare event. And astronomical happenings don't automatically make the other claims in the bible valid...ESPECIALLY if there are HUNDREDS of things demonstrably wrong in the bible, a fact you seem to wilfully ignore

Yes, but what doesn't happen often, or again, is the sun rising in front of Virgo with a crescent moon underneath, and at night, a triple retrograde conjunction of Jupiter over Regulus, as seen near Judea, preceeded by a perfect conjunction of Jupiter and Venus nine months prior, followed 33 years later to the day of the cross, a date verified also by prophecy (Daniel) coinciding with a full lunar eclipse as it rose on the horizon occuring at mid afternoon, and then a red harvest moon in the evening. Also worth considering, ah never mind, this is really just throwing pearls before swine to be trampled under foot by ignorant and hard-hearted people with an agenda not an open-mind.


You do realise that many "prophecies" have been written AFTER the occurrence, right?


If not, here's another example: LINK

And I still don't get what your point is. Writers describing an astronomical event doesn't automatically prove all the other claims


And let me ask you again: What about the HUNDREDS of cases where the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong? You keep on ignoring this, and I get the impression your blind belief is preventing you from thinking logically...



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

That didn't describe the orbit of the moon.

It doesn't describe anything really...not even the earth is a circle, so they didn't even get that right

What are you laughing at? It's called squaring the circle, just one of many HIGHLY unusual properties of the Earth, Moon, Sun relationship.


I'm laughing because it's NONSENSE given that neither the moon nor the earth are circles



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by centrifugal
Exactly the point I have been trying to make. All information anyone here has learned regarding evolution was from a source they believe to be credible. Every belief you hold(true or not) whether atheist or christian is based on intuition and not logic, since we only know logic exists through intuition. Have fun proving the existence of logic with logic... similarly try proving existence of god because you believe in god.

Welcome to religion evolutionists... Enjoy! (This is a taunt)


Its incredibly interesting from a psychological and sociological standpoint, isnt it?

"Why is it true?"

"Because these people said so!"

"Why do you trust them?"

"Because lots of people looked at it and agreed with it!" or "I feel it!"

How can you not feel it centrifugal? How can you not trust people whom you have never met?
Even if they are trustworthy, all we have is a limited human interpretation of the data at hand. The differences in topics like these clearly illustrate how this can not only be flawed, regardless of review scale, but how many blindly trust institutions merely because they agree with a vague premise.

Until we are better equipped as a whole, to explore these things ourselves, it will lead to nothing but stagnation and religion. And that starts in the education system. But that creates "real" freethinkers, and that creates very real problems in the current paradigm. I suspect that many dont actually want to think for themselves, and would rather have the work done for them and then just agree or disagree based on nothing more than bias (or intuition).



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
WRONG.

Why?

Because of scientific method and peer reviews ensuring that mistakes are caught...mistakes that religions aren't willing to catch at all.


First... mistakes are subjective, you will define a mistake based on your belief of the world.

Second... which mistakes are you referring, please provide examples.

Third... Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. There are many sciences and many religions, and cannot not be compared at a general level. Your statement about religions not catching mistakes it just biased. I also generally agree with most scientific theories and yet I still believe in intelligent design.

I will still admit I can't provide definitive proof for either side of the argument, but neither can you.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
This topic came to my attention elsewhere before this ATS thread was posted. I admit that I have not read all 15 pages before posting this, though I have read a few. The posts I did read reveal how this topic exposes the posters' biases of which they are apparently unaware.

It would have been helpful if Nye had explained what he means by "evolution". Does he mean "evolution" as an explanation of the origin of life and of humanity? Or is he referring to the process of natural selection? Or of the development of humankind from other species (which no-one has yet managed to demonstrate can occur).

What Nye says in his broad and rather vague elocution is simply not true. He says kids should “believe in evolution” and that not “believing in evolution” will make it difficult for kids to comprehend science and lead productive lives. That’s nonsense. Isn't that what religions say, i.e. you must believe in our religion because not believing will render your existence on this planet an exercise in pointless futility.

Belief in evolution as the ultimate truth regarding the origin of life and humanity is no less a leap of faith than belief in a Supreme Being or supreme intelligence or “the force” of Star Wars. Not believing in evolution so defined doesn’t preclude logical thought, scientific inquiry, experimentation, and discovery in any field.

Nice try Bill Nye the Evangelical Science Guy. That speech was not a very “scientific” presentation. But Bill, thanks anyway for sharing your religion.

What he says in that video is little different than what other religions say, i.e. “What we believe is right and what you believe is wrong and we don’t have to demonstrate through a process that’s repeatable by you that we are right. We just believe we’re right and therefore we are and you aren’t.”

Bottom line, the origin of life is an unexplained mystery which has neither been solved by science nor by any religion to date.


edit on 8/28/2012 by dubiousone because: Grammar



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I am saying that if you dont do that, you are trusting others to do your exploration and explanation for you and have no ground to stand on when criticizing someone else for having "blind faith."

Ill take it from your response you are not even involved in the scientific community?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by centrifugal

Originally posted by MrXYZ
WRONG.

Why?

Because of scientific method and peer reviews ensuring that mistakes are caught...mistakes that religions aren't willing to catch at all.


First... mistakes are subjective, you will define a mistake based on your belief of the world.

Second... which mistakes are you referring, please provide examples.

Third... Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. There are many sciences and many religions, and cannot not be compared at a general level. Your statement about religions not catching mistakes it just biased. I also generally agree with most scientific theories and yet I still believe in intelligent design.

I will still admit I can't provide definitive proof for either side of the argument, but neither can you.


No, mistakes aren't subjective in science because subjective evidence isn't permitted according to scientific method...read the link I posted.

As for mistakes of religions: global flood (never happened), talking snakes (lol), people surviving in whales (physically impossible), humans just popping up in their current form (demonstrably wrong), ....

Like I said, there's hundreds of examples.

And of course science and religion isn't mutually exclusive...it's just that there's ZERO objective evidence for creationism while science backs up its claims since they use scientific method.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I am saying that if you dont do that, you are trusting others to do your exploration and explanation for you and have no ground to stand on when criticizing someone else for having "blind faith."

Ill take it from your response you are not even involved in the scientific community?


No, I don't work in a lab...but if thousands of independent scientists do experiments and prove the theory then I consider it valid.

According to you, NOTHING can ever be known. When you get in your car you can't ever know if it'll work because after all, can you build an engine?


Look up what peer reviews are



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


It probably is a futile effort even discussing it. The lessons in these replies will be totally forgotten in the next biased evolution vs creationism thread. Everyone is so quick to take a side, and even though I favor intelligent design I am at least open to discussing the arguments. You can't argue with people who have already decided. It's fun to pull their arguments apart though.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
According to you, NOTHING can ever be known. When you get in your car you can't ever know if it'll work because after all, can you build an engine?


Interesting interpretation of the data at hand. I never said that though. Funny how these things work, isnt it?


Look up what peer reviews are


I am aware of what they are. I find it interesting that you, who has no interaction with the scientific community or peer review, would attempt to educate someone else on the matter. Do you get your information on these things from third party sources as well?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

One thing that does become clear is first, that Daniel and his descendants along with Magi from the East were very well acquainted with astonomy, and second, in reading the gospels, that Jesus recognized something rather elemental about his birth origin and his fated calling, which has now been shown to have culminated with a lunar eclipse, the only one visible from the region of Judea during the reign of Pontias Pilate, the implication of which Jesus saw himself as the fullfillment of prophecy and intentionally played the role to the hilt, AND, and here's the kicker, carried out his three year ministry, from baptism at the Jordan River, to the cross, with that celestial event ALREADY IN MIND, but it get's better, when we consider the framing of his conception and birth (running the astonomical tape back further), and then start stepping back and looking at the whole frame from father and father away regarding causes and effects and vice versa.

The Bible can be wrong about lots of things it doesn't matter if the thread of prophecy that runs thorugh it, holds up, and this one holds up under scrutiny, BOTH from the prophetic framework eminating to and from Daniel, AND to the present day, looking back with the help of a little historical sleuthing and some astonomical software.

We've all been punk'd by God! And the "learned and the wise" will be confounded..

P.S. I am a scientifically minded person and was once a very sceptical atheist, but I still kept an open mind while continuing my investigation.


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



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by MrXYZ
According to you, NOTHING can ever be known. When you get in your car you can't ever know if it'll work because after all, can you build an engine?


Interesting interpretation of the data at hand. I never said that though. Funny how these things work, isnt it?


Look up what peer reviews are


I am aware of what they are. I find it interesting that you, who has no interaction with the scientific community or peer review, would attempt to educate someone else on the matter. Do you get your information on these things from third party sources as well?


You do realise that you first say "I never said that" just to then repeat EXACTLY what I'm accusing you of, right?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by centrifugal
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


It probably is a futile effort even discussing it. The lessons in these replies will be totally forgotten in the next biased evolution vs creationism thread. Everyone is so quick to take a side, and even though I favor intelligent design I am at least open to discussing the arguments. You can't argue with people who have already decided. It's fun to pull their arguments apart though.


I think it is too, blind faith is a difficult thing to argue with. And it is fun to go through the arguments, those who actually explore these things themselves are few and far between. But those who criticize others for not doing it are many.

I do this when Im a bit bored.
I dont expect to change anyones mind, thats for sure! Its just too bad such indoctrination is pushed on our children..



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I guess Bill Nye never heard of these popular scientists who believe in God

www.godandscience.org...
www.brainpickings.org...
www.famousscientists.org...
www.adherents.com...

What Bill fails to take into account is teaching children a belief in most mainstream religions bring with it teachings of moral and ethical structure. These kids grow up with these teachings knowing right from wrong and acting like they have a conscience. Kids who grow up without this structure are more unruly and prone to become hoodlums and criminals.

Bill also fails to take into account the fact that many tenets of religion are based in science - The Holy Spirits indwelling in someones life, the gifts of the Spirit, miracles, healing through touch or word or carrying out instruction of deeds through the Holy Spirit.. the list goes on. All these supernatural things are not really supernatural at all, but are based in our physical world and operate through our laws of physics. It's just that this science is so far above our scientists present understanding, they choose to ignore and dismiss this science.

That's the least objective stance a true scientists can take. When they ignore these things, it shows that they are not true scientists at all, but a shill working for someones agenda.

Science and religion or creationism is Not at odds with each other. It only appears this way because the two and how they relate to each other is not well understood. If Bill has his way, tons of youth will grow up without the stable moral foundations they need to become levelheaded reasonable thinking adults. There must be balance in both schools of teaching with reason being able to distinguish the differences between the two - but they are Both valid teachings that individuals benefit from having, you can't take away one or the other.


edit on 28-8-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

One thing that does become clear is that Daniel and his descendants along with Magi from the East were very well acquainted with astonomy, and in reading the gospels that Jesus recognized something rather elemental about his birth origin and fated calling, which has now been shown to have culminated with a lunar eclipse, the only one visible from the region of Judea during the reign of Pontias Pilate, the implication of which Jesus saw himself as the fullfillment of prophecy and intentionally played the role to the hilt, AND, and here's the kicker, carried out his three year ministry, from baptism at the Jordan River to the cross, with that celetial event already in MIND, but it get's better, when we consider the framing of his conception and birth, and then start stepping back and looking at the frame from father and father away regarding causes and effects or vice versa.

The Bible can be wrong about lots of things it doesn't matter is the thread of prophecy that runs thorugh it, holds up, and this one holds up under scrutiny, BOTH from the prophecy framework eminating from Daniel, AND to the present day with the help of a little historical sleuthing and astonomical software.


What "thread of prophecy" are you talking about??? I already linked you a page that lists HUNDREDS of prophecies in the bible that are DEMONSTRABLY wrong


And again, lunar eclipses like that aren't all that rare...most countries have one every 2-5 years.

Also, as I mentioned before, many of the bible "prophecies" list the facts AFTER they already occurred



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


There's more scientists with the name Steve (not Stephen, or Stephan, or any other form!) than scientists who disbelieve in evolution


And of course there's scientists that believe in creationism, but that doesn't mean they're right UNLESS they provide proof...which those guys you linked haven't. They merely state and OPINION that isn't based on facts.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

Here
www.bethlehemstar.net...

Bye.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join